PATENT  GI 


ii 


WITH 


PRAGTIGENQT 


L 


UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


SCHOOL  OF  LAW 
LIBRARY 


THE 

PATENT  CITATOR 


WITH 


PRACTICE  NOTES 


IN 


APPEAL  CASES 


BY 
ELLIOTT  J.  STODDARD 

(DETROIT  BAR) 


DETROIT,  MICHIGAN 

DRAKE  LAW  BOOK  COMPANY 
1909 


1909 


COPYRIGHT.   1909 

DRAKE  LAW  BOOK  CO. 


c- 


PREFACE 

The  Court  of  Appeals  of  the  District  of  Columbia  seems  to  be  attracting 
a  greater  and  greater  degree  of  confidence.  Appeals  to  it  in  patent  matters 
are  more  prevalent  than  formerly,  and  the  stricture,  that  it  is  a  mere  instru- 
ment for  putting  a  seal  upon  the  errors  of  an  over-burdened  Patent  Office, 
is  not  so  frequently  heard.  Those  interested  in  patent  property  are 
indebted  to  it  for  settling  a  number  of  difficult  questions  of  law  and  practice 
upon  what  seems  to  be  correct  and  permanent  grounds.  A  sentiment  of 
gratitude  and  courtesy  imposes  upon  those  practicing  before  it  the  pleasant 
obligation  of  facilitating  its  labors  as  much  as  possible.  It  is  hoped  that 
these  notes,  mainly  made  for  my  own  use,  may  assist  to  this  end  in  some 
slight  degree. 

Elliott  J.  Stoddard. 
Detroit,  Mich.,  March  15,  1909. 


INDEX-CONTENTS 

10 

PATENT  PRACTICE  NOTES 

IN 

APPEAL  CASES 


Page 
COURT  RULES 

COURT  DECISIONS  MUST  BE  CITED  IN  BRIEFS  1 

APPEALS  FROM  THE  COMMISSIONER  OF  PATENTS  1 
OPINIONS  OF  LOWER  COURT  AND  COMMISSIONER 

OF  PATENTS  MADE  PART  OF  RECORD  2 

SUNDAYS  AND  LEGAL  HOLIDAYS  EXCLUDED  3 

INSTRUCTIONS  TO  APPELLANTS  3 

POWERS  OF  THE  COURT  4 

ACT  Sec.       1,         4 

CONSTITUTIONALITY  Sec.         2,           4 

CONSTRUCTION  OF  INTERFERENCE  IN  SECTION 

NINE  OF  ACT  Sec.         3,           5 
RULES  OF  PATENT  OFFICE  RELATING  TO  AP- 
PEALS Sec.       4,          5 
JURISDICTION 

As  TO  Its  Scope  Sec.      5,        5 

As  TO  Appeal  on  a  Motion  to  Dissolve  Sec.      6,        6 

As   to   Administration   of   Patent   Office  Sec.       7,        6 

As  to  Remedy  In  Equity  Sec.      8,        6 

APPEAL  6 
PARTIES 

As  TO  Appeal  Sec.      9,        6 
As  TO  Rights  Respecting  Non-Appealing 

Parties  Sec.     10,        7 

FINAL  DECISIONS  OF  COMMISSIONER 

As  TO  Final  Decisions  Sec.     11,        7 

As  TO  Certain  Cases  Sec.     12,        7 

As  TO  Amendments  Sec.     13,        7 

SUBJECT  MATTER 

As  TO  Patentability  In  Interference  Cases  Sec.     14,        7 
As  TO  Priority  Being  Settled  Before 

Patentability                                     .  Sec.     15,        8 


16, 

8 

17, 

8 

18, 

8 

19, 

8 

20, 

8 

21, 

8 

22, 

9 

23, 

9 

26, 

9 

27, 

9 

28, 

9 

29, 

9 

30, 

10 

31, 

10 

X  INDEX  —  CONTENTS 

APPEALS— CONTINUED  Page 

As  TO  Interlocutory  Rulings  Sec. 

As  TO  Newly  Discovered  Evidence  Sec. 
As  TO  Interlocutory  Decisions  Not  Subject 

TO  Reviews  Sec. 
As  TO  Descriptions  Not  Usually  Reviewable  Sec. 

As  to  Trade-Mark  Interference  Sec. 

As  TO  Priority  of  Invention  Sec. 

As  TO  Identity  of  Invention  Sec. 

As  TO  Quasi-Judicial  Proceedings  Sec. 
As  TO  Refusal  to  Consider  Patentability 

Final  Sec.    24, 
As  to  Certain  Rights  of  Party  Considered 

Ancillary  Sec.    25, 
As  TO  Decisions  Confined  to  Matters  Considered 

By  Commissioner  Sec. 

As  TO  Additional  Claim   Presented  Sec. 

As  TO  Claim  Considered  By  the  Office  Sec. 
As  TO  Distinction  Between  Rights  of  Appeal 

AND  Refusal  of  Patent  Sec. 

As  to  Patentability  Not  Re-Considered  Sec. 

As  to  Consideration  of  Final  Decisions  Sec. 

MOTIONS 

As  TO  Delay  Sec.    32,       10 
As  TO  Appellee's  Right  to  Have  Cause  Dis- 
missed Sec.     33,       10 
As  to  New  Trial  Sec.     34,       10 

ORDER 

As  TO  Refusing  New  Trial  Sec.     35,       10 

RECORD 

As  TO  Content  Sec. 

As  TO  Failure  to  Print  Sec. 

As  to  Being  Public  Sec. 

RULES 

As  to  Limitation  of  Time  Sec.     39,       1 1 

WEIGHT  GIVEN  COMMISSIONER'S  DECISIONS 

As  TO  the  Rule  of  the  Conclusiveness  of 

facts  Sec. 

Cases  Reviewed  Sec. 

Conception  Sec. 

Diligence  Sec. 

Disclosure  Sec. 

Employer  and  Employee  Sec. 

Evidence  Sec. 

Identity  of  Inventor  Sec. 

Office  Practice  Sec. 


36, 

10 

37, 

11 

38, 

11 

40, 

41, 

42, 

43, 

44, 

45, 

46, 

12 

47, 

12 

48, 

12 

Sec. 

49, 

12 

Sec. 

50, 

12 

Sec. 

51, 

12 

Sec. 

52, 

12 

Sec. 

53, 

12 

Sec. 

54, 

12 

Sec. 

55, 

12 

Sec. 

56, 

13 

Sec. 

57, 

13 

Sec. 

58, 

13 

Sec. 

59, 

13 

Sec. 

60, 

13 

Sec. 

61, 

13 

Sec. 

62, 

13 

INDEX  —  CONTENTS  XI 

APPEALS—CONTINUED  Page 

Operativeness 

Originality 

Patentability 

Priority 

Reduction  to  Practice 
As  TO  Construction  of  Rule 
As  TO  Circumstances  When  Rule  is  Followed  Sec. 
As  TO  Conclusions  By  Different  Paths 
As  TO  Reversibility  of  Erroneous  Conclusions  Sec. 

MANDAMUS  13 

DECISIONS 

As  to  Time  Limit 

As  TO  Not  Being  the  Remedy 

As  to  Remedy  to  Alternate  With  Appeal 

As  THE  Remedy 

As  TO  Remedy  Being  Final  In  Court  of  Appeal  Sec. 

EFFECT  OF  DECISION  OF  THE  COURT  ON  THE  COM- 
MISSIONER 14 

DECISIONS 

As  TO  Decisions  of  the  Court  Binding  Sec.     63,       14 

As  TO  Finding  of  Facts  of  the  Court  Binding  On 

Commissioner 
As  to  Dissolution 

As  to  Rehearing  Concerning  Priority 
As  TO  Case  Re-Opened  Under  Unusual  Circum- 
stances 
As  TO  Refusal  of  Patent  After  Appeal  on 
Priority 

TIME  LIMIT  RULES 

DECISIONS 

As  to  Limitation  of  Time  For  Appeal 

As  to  No  Extension  of  Time 

As  to  Computing  Legal  Holidays 

As  to  Exception  ^ 

As  TO  Forty  Days  Rule 

As  to  Commencement  of  Action 

As  to  New  Trial 

As  TO  Lapse  of  Time  In  Rehearing 

MISCELLANEOUS  15 

DECISIONS 

.    As  TO  Court's  Control  of  Assignment  Sec.    77,       15 


Sec. 

64, 

14 

Sec. 

65, 

14 

Sec. 

66, 

14 

Sec. 

67, 

14 

Sec. 

68, 

14 
14 

Sec. 

69, 

14 

Sec. 

70, 

15 

Sec. 

71, 

15 

Sec. 

72, 

15 

Sec. 

73, 

15 

Sec. 

74, 

15 

Sec. 

75, 

15 

Sec. 

76, 

15 

XII  INDEX  —  CONTENTS 

MISCELLANEOUS— COiVr/N^£D  Page 

As  TO  Court  Being  Powerless  to  Direct  Action 

OF  Executive  Office                                     Sec.  78,       15 
As  TO  Court's  Allowance  of  Writ  of  Error  or 

Appeal                                                              Sec.  79,       16 
As  TO  Court's  Acceptance  of   Commissioner's 

Decision                                                            Sec.  80,       16 
As  TO  Court's  Discretion  to  Relieve  Against 

Default  Sec.  81,  16 
As  TO  Court's  Power  to  Award  Costs  Sec.  82,  16 
As  TO  Where  Record  Has  No  Bearing  In  Case  Sec.  83,  16 
As  TO  Res  Adjudicata  Based  on  General  Assign- 
ment OF  Errors  Sec.  84,  16 
As  TO  Presumption  of  Acquiesence  In  Decision  Sec.  85,  16 
As  TO  Patentability  Being  Reserved  Sec.  86,  16 
As  TO  Time  Allowance  Not  Prejudicial  Sec.  87,  17 
As  TO  Assignment  of  Trade-Mark  Sec.  88,  17 
As  TO  Consideration  of  Affidavit  Concerning 

Changes  In  Drawing                                    Sec.  89,       17 

As  TO  Verification  By  Attorney                       Sec.  90,       17 

As  to  Preliminary  Statement                              Sec.  91,       17 


PATENT  PRACTICE  NOTES 


IN 


APPEAL  CASES 


Court  Rules 

No.  VIII. 

COURT  DECISIONS  MUST  BE  CITED  IN  BRIEFS 

4.  Whenever  a  decision  of  the  Court,  that  has  been  published  in  the 
official  reports  of  the  Court,  shall  be  cited  in  a  brief,  the  reference  shall 
include  the  volume  and  page  of  the  reports  wherein  the  same  has  been 
published. 

No.  XXI. 

APPEALS  FROM  THE  COMMISSIONER  OF  PATENTS 

1.  All  certified  copies  of  papers  and  evidence  on  appeal  from  the 
decision  of  the  Commissioner  of  Patents,  authorized  by  section  9  of  the 
act  of  Congress  approved  February  9,  1893,  shall  be  received  by  the  clerk 
of  this  Court,  and  the  cases,  by  titling  and  numbering  as  they  appear  on  the 
record  in  the  Patent  Office,  shall  be  placed  on  a  separate  docket  from  the 
docket  of  the  cases  brought  into  this  Court  by  appeal  from  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  to  be  designated  as  the  "Patent  Appeal 
Docket;"  and  upon  filing  such  copies  the  party  appellant  shall  deposit  with 
the  clerk,  or  secure  to  be  paid  as  demanded,  an  amount  of  money  sufficient 
to  cover  all  legal  costs  and  expenses  of  said  appeal;  and  upon  failure  to 
do  so  his  appeal  shall  be  dismissed.  The  clerk  shall,  under  this  titling  of 
the  case  on  the  docket,  make  brief  entries  of  all  papers  filed  and  of  all 
proceedings  had  in  the  case. 

2.  The  appellant,  upon  complying  with  the  preceding  section  of  this 
rule,  shall  file  in  the  case  a  petition  addressed  to  the  Court  in  which  he 
shall  briefly  set  forth  and  show  that  he  has  complied  with  the  require- 
ments of  sections  4912  and  4913  of  the  Revised  Statutes  of  the  United 
States  to  entitle  him  to  an  appeal,  and  praying  that  his  appeal  may  be 
heard  upon  and  for  the  reasons  assigned  therefor  to  the  Commissioner; 
and  said  appeal  shall  be  taken  within  forty  days,  exclusive  of  Sundays  and 

legal  holidays,  from  the  date  of  the  ruling  or  order  appealed  from  and  not 


I,  PRACTICE  NOTES  IN  APPEAL,  CASES 

afterwards.  If  the  petition  for  an  appeal  and  the  certified  copies  of  papers 
and  evidence  on  appeal  mentioned  in  this  and  the  preceding  section  of  this 
rule  shall  not  be  filed  and  the  case  fully  docketed  from  the  day  upon  which 
notice  of  appeal  is  given  to  the  Commissioner  of  Patents,  the  Commis- 
sioner, upon  such  facts  being  brought  to  his  attention  by  motion  of  the 
appellee,  duly  served  upon  the  appellant  or  his  attorney,  may  take  such 
further  proceedings  in  the  case  as  may  be  necessary  to  dispose  of  the 
same,  as  though  no  notice  of  appeal  had  ever  been  given.  That  this  addi- 
tion to  said  Rule  21  shall  not  go  into  effect  and  operation  until  and  from 
the  first  Monday  of  December  next;  and  that  a  copy  of  said  Rule  21,  as 
thus  amended,  be  furnished  by  the  clerk  of  this  Court  to  the  Commissioner 
of  Patents. 

3.  The  clerk  shall  provide  a  minute  book  of  his  office,  in  which  he 
shall  record  every  order,  rule,  judgment,  or  decree  of  the  Court  in  each 
case,  in  the  order  of  time  in  which  said  proceedings  shall  occur;  and  of 
this  book  the  index  shall  be  so  kept  as  to  show  the  name  of  the  party 
applying  for  the  patent,  the  invention  by  subject  matter  or  name,  and,  in 
the  cases  of  interference,  the  name  of  the  party  with  whose  pending  appli- 
cation or  unexpired  patent  the  subsequent  application  is  supposed  to  inter- 
fere. 

4.  The  cases  on  this  docket  shall  be  called  for  argument  on  the  second 
Tuesday  of  January,  March,  May  and  November  in  each  year,  and  the 
cases  shall  be  called  in  regular  order  as  they  may  stand  on  the  docket.  A 
copy  of  these  rules  shall  be  furnished  to  the  Commissioner  of  Patents; 
and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  clerk  of  this  Court  to  give  special  notice  to 
the  said  Commissioner  at  least  fifteen  days  immediately  preceding  the 
times  thus  respectively  fixed  for  the  hearing  of  said  cases;  the  said  notice 
to  name  the  place  of  the  sitting  of  the  Court,  the  titling  of  the  cases  on  the 
docket  of  this  Court,  the  respective  numbers  thereof,  and  the  number  of 
each  case  as  it  appears  of  record  in  the  Patent  Office;  and  thereupon  the 
Commissioner  shall  give  notice  to  the  parties  interested  or  concerned  by 
notice  addressed  to  them  severally  by  mail. 

5.  The  clerk  shall  furnish  to  any  applicant  a  copy  of  any  paper  in  any 
of  said  appeals  on  payment  of  the  legal  fees  therefor. 

6.  The  appeals  from  the  Commissioner  of  Patents  shall  be  subject  to 
all  the  rules  of  this  Court  provided  for  other  cases  therein,  except  where 
such  rules,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  or  by  reason  of  special  provisions 
inconsistent  therewith,  are  not  applicable. 

No.  XXII. 

OPINIONS  OF  LOWER  COURT  AND  COMMISSIONER  OF  PATENTS 
MADE  PART  OF  RECORD 

Whenever  the  judgment,  decree,  or  order  appealed  from  is  based  upon 


PATENT  RULES  IN  APPEALS 


3 


or  has  reference  to  a  written  opinion  filed  in  the  case  by  the  court  below, 
such  opinion  shall  constitute  a  part  of  the  transcript  to  be  sent  to  this 
Court;  and  such  opinion,  and  also  the  written  reasons  or  grounds  assigned 
by  the  Commissioner  of  Patents  in  appeals  from  the  Patent  Office,  shall 
be  printed  as  part  of  the  record  to  be  printed  under  Rule  6. 

No.  XXVI. 
SUNDAYS  AND  LEGAL  HOLIDAYS  EXCLUDED 

That  wherever  days  are  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  rules  as  limitation 
of  time  they  shall  be  construed  to  exclude  Sundays  and  legal  holidays. 


Instructions  to  Appellants 

The  act  of  Congress  creating  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  the  District  of 
Columbia,  approved  February  9,  1893,  gives  to  that  Court  jurisdiction  of 
appeals  from  final  decisions  of  the  Commissioner  of  Patents  both  in  ex 
parte  cases  and  in  interference  cases. 

Where  an  appeal  of  either  class  is  to  be  prosecuted  to  the  Court  of 
Appeals  of  the  District  of  Columbia  the  first  step  is  to  file  with  the  Com- 
missioner of  Patents  a  notice  of  appeal,  together  with  an  assignment  of 
reasons  of  appeal.  This  step  must  be  taken  within  forty  days,  exclusive 
of  Sundays  and  legal  holidays,  from  the  date  of  the  decision  of  the  Com- 
missioner of  Patents  sought  to  be  reviewed. 

The  next  step  in  the  prosecution  of  such  an  appeal  is  to  file  with  the 
clerk  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  the  District  of  Columbia  a  certified  tran- 
script of  the  record  and  proceedings  in  the  Patent  Office  relating  to  the 
case  in  question,  together  with  a  petition  for  appeal,  addressed  to  the  Court 
of  Appeals  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  make  a  deposit  of  $15,  and  have 
the  appearance  of  a  member  of  the  bar  of  that  Court  entered  for  the 
appellant. 

The  notice  of  appeal  and  reasons  of  appeal  required  to  be  served  upon 
the  Commissioner  of  Patents  may  be  signed  by  the  applicant  or  by  his 
attorney  of  record  in  the  Patent  Office,  but  the  petition  for  an  appeal  that 
is  filed  in  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  the  District  of  Columbia  must  be  signed 
by  a  member  of  the  bar  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  the  District  of  Colum- 
bia, who  should  enter  a  regular  appearance  in  the  case  in  the  clerk's 
office. 

After  the  petition  for  appeal,  the  certified  transcript,  and  the  docket  fee 
of  $15  have  been  lodged  in  the  office  of  the  clerk  of  the  Court  of  Appeals 
of  the  District  of  Columbia,  the  clerk  will  send  to  the  solicitor  of  record 
an  estimate  of  the  cost  of  printing  the  petition,  transcript,  etc. 

When  the  amount  called  for  is  deposited,  the  clerk  will  cause  the  print- 
ing to  be  done  under  his  supervision,  and  when  the  printing  is  completed 
the  case  will  be  put  on  the  calendar  for  hearing  at  the  next  term  at  which 
patent  appeals  are  heard. 


^  PRACTICE  NOTES  IN  APPEAL,  CASES 

In  interference  cases  the  clerk  is  authorized  to  receive  printed  copies  of 
the  evidence,  such  as  have  been  used  in  the  Patent  Office,  thus  saving  to 
the  appellant  the  cost  of  re-printing  such  evidence.  When  such  printed 
copies  are  supplied,  twenty-five  copies  must  be  furnished. 

As  above  stated,  the  notice  of  appeal  and  the  reasons  of  appeal  are 
required  to  be  filed  with  the  Commissioner  of  Patents  within  forty  days 
(exclusive  of  Sundays  and  legal  holidays)  of  the  date  of  the  decision 
appealed  from,  but  the  petition  for  appeals  and  the  certified  transcript 
which  are  to  be  filed  in  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  the  District  of  Columbia 
are  required  to  be  filed  in  that  Court  within  forty  days  (exclusive  of  Sun- 
days and  legal  holidays)  from  the  time  of  giving  of  the  notice  of  appeal; 
that  is  to  say,  if  the  decision  complained  of  was  rendered  for  instance,  on 
the  1st  day  of  July,  1896,  the  party  aggrieved  might  file  his  notice  of 
appeal,  with  the  reasons  of  appeal,  at  any  time  within  forty  days  (exclusive 
of  Sundays  and  legal  holidays)  thereafter;  but  if  he  filed  his  notice  of 
appeal  and  reasons  therefor  on  the  10th  day  of  July,  1896,  he  would  be 
required  to  file  his  petition  for  appeal  and  the  certified  transcript  in  the 
Court  of  Appeals  of  the  District  of  Columbia  within  forty  days  (exclusive 
of  Sundays  and  legal  holidays)  of  the  10th  of  July,  1896. 


Powers  of  the  Court 


ACT 

Sec.  1.  The  "Act  to  establish  a  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  District  of 
Columbia,  and  for  other  purposes,"  approved  February  9th.  1893  (27 
Stats.,  434,  436,  ch.  74)  as  to  Section  9  reads  as  follows: 

Sec  9.  That  the  determination  of  appeals  from  the  decision 
of  the  Commissioner  of  Patents,  now  vested  in  the  General  Term 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  in  pursuance 
of  the  provisions  of  section  seven  hundred  and  eight  of  the 
Revised  Statutes  of  the  United  States,  relating  to  the  District  of 
Columbia,  shall  hereafter  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  vested  in 
the  Court  of  Appeals  created  by  this  act;  and  in  addition,  any 
party  aggrieved  by  a  decision  of  the  Commissioner  of  Patents  in 
any  interference  case  may  appeal  therefrom  to  said  Court  of 
Appeals. 

CONSTITUTIONALITY 

Sec.  2.  This  act  was  held  constitutional  in  United  States,  ex  rel.  Ber- 
nardin  v.  Duall,  Commissioner  of  Patents,  86  O.G.  995. 


POWERS  OF  THE  COURT  5 

CONSTRUCTION  OF  INTERFERENCE  IN  SECTION  NINE  OF  ACT 

Sec.  3.  The  word  "interference"  in  section  9  of  the  act  establishing 
the  Court  of  Appeals  of  the  District  of  Columbia  interpreted  and  Held 
not  to  mean  and  include  disputes  in  Trade-Marks  under  section  3  of  the 
Trade-Mark  law  of  188!,  but  to  be  confined  to  an  interference  in  patent 
law— Einstein  v.  Sawhill,  65  O.G.  1918. 

RULES  OF  PATENT  OFFICE  RELATING  TO  APPEALS 

Rule  148 
Sec.  4.     From   the   adverse   decision   of  the   Commissioner  upon  the 
claims  of  an  application  and  in  interference  cases,  an  appeal  may  be  taken 
to  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  the  District  of  Columbia  in  the  manner  pre- 
scribed by  the  rules  of  that  Court. 

Rule  149 
When  an  appeal  is  taken  to  the  Court  of  appeals  of  the  District  of 
Columbia,  the  appellant  will  give  notice  thereof  to  the  Commissioner,  and 
file  in  the  Patent  Office,  within  forty  days,  exclusive  of  Sundays  and 
holidays,  from  the  date  of  the  decision  appealed  from,  his  reasons  of 
appeal  specifically  set  forth  in  writing. 

Rule  150 
Pro  forma  proceedings  will  not  be  had  in  the  Patent  Office  for  the 
purpose  of  securing  to  applicants  an  appeal  to  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  the 
District  of  Columbia. 

Rule  8 
Court  Of  Appeals  Of  The  District  Of  Columbia 

It  is  ordered  by  the  Court  that  the  order  of  January  9,  1908,  modifying 
Section  2,  Rule  8,  by  limiting  the  time  of  argument  to  one  hour  on  each 
side,  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  suspended  until  further  order. 

Per  Mr.  Chief  Justice  Shepard 
Feb.  2,  1909. 
Test:    Henry  W.  Hodges, 

Clerk  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  the  District  of  Columbia. 

JURISDICTION 

As  To  Its  Scope 

Sec.  5.  The  jurisdiction  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  the  District  of 
Columbia  to  entertain  appeals  from  the  decisions  of  the  Commissioner 
of  Patents  in  proceedings  relating  to  patents  is  limited  to  two  classes — 
(1)  Where  the  claims  of  an  application  for  a  patent  or  the  re-issue  of  a 
patent  after  having  been  twice  rejected  have  been  finally  rejected  on 


O  PRACTICE  NOTES  IN  APPEAL.  CASES 

appeal  to  the  Commissioner  in  due  course  of  proceeding.  (2)  Where  an 
appeal  to  the  Commissioner  in  an  interference  proceeding  there  has  been 
a  final  decision  on  priority  in  favor  of  one  of  the  parties  thereto.  R.  S. 
Sees.  4909,  4910,  4911;  Westinghouse  v.  Duncan,  2  App.D.C.  8,  17,  26; 
Union  Distilling  Co.  v.  Schneider,  29  App.  D.C.  1 ;  In  re  FuUager,  138  O.G. 
259. 

As  To  Appeal  On  A  Motion  To  Dissolve 

Sec.  6.  The  Court  of  Appeals  of  the  District  of  Columbia  has  no  juris- 
diction to  entertain  an  appeal  from  a  decision  of  the  Commissioner  of 
Patents  on  a  motion  to  dissolve  an  interference  between  an  appellant  for 
re-issue  and  an  original  application  holding  that  appellant  had  no  right 
to  a  re-issue  on  the  ground  that  his  showing  of  inadvertence,  accident,  or 
mistake  was  insufficient  and  that  he  had  failed  to  excuse  the  long  delay 
of  more  than  two  years  in  filing  the  re-issue  application,  as  such  judgment 
does  not  constitute  an  adjudication  of  the  question  of  priority  between 
the  parties.     In  re  Fullagar,  138  O.G.  259. 

As  To  Administration  Of  Patent  Office 

Sec.  7.  The  Court  has  jurisdiction  of  appeals  from  the  Commissioner 
of  Patents  in  certain  matters  defined  by  statute,  but  has  no  original  juris- 
diction to  direct  and  supervise  the  administration  of  the  affairs  of  the 
Patent  Office.  A  petition  to  direct  the  Commissioner  to  allow  petitioner 
to  proceed  with  the  taking  of  testimony  refused.  DeFerranti  v.  Lindmark 
137  O.G.  733,  Neill  v.  Commissioner  of  Patents  82  O.G.  749. 

As  To  Remedy  In  Equity 

Sec.  8.  The  Act  establishing  the  Court  of  Appeals  did  not  by  implica- 
tion repeal  the  Statute  providing  remedy  by  bill  in  equity  in  a  circuit  court. 
Bernardin  v.  Vorthall  and  Seymour,  Commissioner  of  Patents  78  O.G. 
1740. 


Appeal 

PARTIES 

As  To  Appeal 

Sec.  9.  A  motion  by  E.  that  he  be  made  a  party  to  an  appeal  to  the 
Court  of  Appeals  of  the  District  of  Columbia  taken  by  F.  from  a  decision 
of  the  Commissioner  of  Patents  on  a  motion  to  dissolve  holding  that  F. 
had  no  right  to  make  the  claims  of  the  issue  because  of  his  delay  in  filing 
his  re-issue  application  involved  in  this  interference  denied  on  the  ground 
that  the  Commissioner's  decision  did  not  result  in  award  of  priority  to  E., 
and  therefore  F.  could  not  bring  him  before  the  Court  by  an  appeal.    For 


PARTIES  IN  APPEALS  7 

the  same  reasons  E.'s  motions  to  have  the  docket  entry  changed  and  to 
dismiss  F.'s  appeal  denied.     In  re  Fullagar,  138  O.G.  259. 

As  To  Rights  Respecting  Non-Appealing  Parties 

Sec.  10.  Where  an  interference  is  declared  between  three  parties  and 
all  present  testified  and  but  one  of  the  parties  takes  an  appeal  to  the  Court 
of  Appeals,  the  case  made  out  by  the  party  who  has  not  appealed  cannot 
be  considered  in  the  determination  of  the  controversy.  Richard  v.  Meiss- 
ner,  114  O.G.  1831. 

FINAL  DECISIONS  OF  COMMISSIONER 

As  To  Final  Decisions 

Sec.  11.  Up  to  the  present  time  the  Court  of  Appeals  has  entertained 
appeals  in  interference  cases  only  from  the  final  decision  of  the  Com- 
missioner upon  the  question  of  priority  of  invention.  (Allen,  Commis- 
sioner of  Patents,  v.  The  United  States  of  America,  ex  rel.,  Lowry  and 
Planter  Compress  Co.,  116  O.G.  2253.)  DeFerranti  v.  Lindmark,  137 
O.G.  731 ;  Marshutz  v.  Commissioner  of  Patents,  85  O.G.  778. 

As  To  Certain  Cases 

Sec.  12.  The  statutes  give  right  of  appeal  only  in  cases  where  the 
various  tribunals  of  the  Office  acted  and  not  when  the  Examiners-in-Chief 
suggest  that  the  issue  is  not  patentable.  Serrell  v.  Donnelly,  129  O.G. 
2501. 

As  To  Amendments 

Sec.  13.  Neither  the  rules  of  this  Court,  nor  of  the  Patent  Office, 
mention  amendments  as  the  reason  of  appeals;  but  when  made  in  due 
time,  to  correct  an  assignment  that  may  not  be  sufficiently  specific,  or  some 
inadvertance  in  its  preparation,  and  no  possible  injury  could  be  done  to 
the  opposing  party,  we  see  no  reason  why  it  should  not  be  permitted. 
Horine  v.  Wende,  129  O.G.  2858. 

SUBJECT-MATTER 

As  To  Patentability  In  Interference  Cases 

Sec.  14.  In  general,  the  question  of  patentability  is  not  open  in  an 
appeal  in  interference  cases.  (Hisey  v.  Peter,  71  O.G.  892;  Doyle  v.  Mc- 
Roberts,  79  O.G.  1029.)  Orcutt  v.  McDonald,  Jr.,  and  McDonald,  123  O.G. 
1288;  Newton  v.  Woodward,  93  O.G.  2320  (explaining  Bechmati  v.  Wood, 
89  O.G.  2320) ;  Latham  v.  Armat,  95  O.G.  232.  (See  subject  "Patentabil- 
ity" in  section  6.)  Potter  v.  Mcintosh,  127  O.G.  1995;  Mill  v.  Midgley, 
136  O.G.  1534;  Luger  v.  Browning,  104  O.G.  112.  (Distinguishing  from 
Oliver  v.  Felbel,  100  O.G.  2384) ;  Dodge  v.  Fowler,  82  O.G.  595;  Doyle  v. 
McRoberts,  79  O.G.  1529. 


O  PRACTICE  NOTES  IN  APPEAL.  CASES 

As  To  Priority  Being  Settled  Before  Patentability 

Sec.  15.  The  Court  of  Appeals  regards  it  as  improper  for  them  to 
adjudicate  the  question  of  priority  before  the  question  of  patentability  is 
fully  settled.     Slaughter  v.  Halle,    102  O.G.  469. 

As  To  Interlocutory  Rulings 

Sec.  16.  It  is  well  settled  that  this  Court  cannot  and  should  not  inter- 
fere with  such  (interlocutory)  rulings,  unless  perhaps  in  extreme  cases 
it  should  be  necessary  for  the  maintenance  of  the  jurisdiction  of  this 
Court.     Ritter  v.  Krakau  &  Connor,  Jr.,  114  O.G.  1553-1554. 

As  To  Newly  Discovered  Evidence 

Sec.  17.  The  re-opening  of  a  case  for  the  introduction  of  newly  dis- 
covered evidence  is  a  matter  of  discretion  for  the  trial  court,  and  will  not 
be  reviewed  by  this  Court.  Richards  v.  Meissner,  114  O.G.  1831;  Dunbar 
V.  Schellenger,  128  O.G.  2837;  Omes  v.  Starr,  117  O.G.  1495. 

As  To  Interlocutory  Decisions  Not  Subject  To  Reviev^^s 

Sec.  18.  The  decision  was  an  interlocutory  one  relating  to  the  general 
practice  of  the  Office  (Rules  30,  31,  75)  in  all  such  cases,  and  the  question 
of  its  propriety  as  presented,  is  not  necessarily  involved  in  the  decision  on 
its  merits.  For  the  reasons  given  in  the  following  cases  it  is  not  the 
subject  of  review:  Westinghouse  v.  Duncan,  66  O.G.  1009;  Mill,  11  App. 
D.C.  584,  588;  Frasch,  100  O.G.  1977;  192  U.S.  566;  Davis  v.  Garrett,  123 
O.G.  1991;  Hulett  v.  Long,  89  O.  G.  1141. 

As  To  Descriptions  Not  Usually  Reviewable 

Sec.  19.  The  question  whether  the  description  in  a  design  case  is  a 
proper  one  is  not  reviewable  by  the  Court  of  Appeals  except  in  an  extra- 
ordinary case.     Mygatt,  121  O.G.  1676. 

As  To  Trade-Mark  Interference 

Sec.  20.  A  trade-mark  interference  declared  under  the  act  of  1881  but 
not  decided  until  after  the  passage  of  the  act  of  February  20,  1905,  is 
appealable  to  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  the  District  of  Columbia  under  the 
act  of  February  20,  1905,  where  the  only  application  involved  has  been 
amended  to  bring  it  under  the  provision  of  that  act.  Giles  Remedy  Com- 
pany V.  Giles,  120  O.G.  826. 

As  To  Priority  Of  Invention 

Sec.  21.  A  decision  against  a  party  on  the  ground  that  his  original 
application  did  not  contain  the  inventions  seems  to  be  one  of  priority  of 
invention  and  the  decision  should  be  such  as  to  give  the  unsuccessful 
party  opportunity  to  take  an  appeal  in  the  interference  to  the  Court  of 
Appeals  and  not  one  dissolving  the  interference.  Pohle  v.  McKnight,  119 
O.G.  2519. 


SUBJECT  MATTER  V 

As  To  Identity  Of  Invention 
Sec.  22.     Question  of  the  identity  of  the  inventions  involved  proper 
to  be  considered  by  the  Court  of  Appeals  on  appeal  from  the  final  decision 
of  the  Commissioner.    Bechman  v.  Wood,  89  O.G.  2459;  but  see  Bechman 
V.  Wood,  89  O.G.  2462. 

As  To  Quasi-Judicial  Proceedings 

Sec.  23.  It  is  only  by  regarding  the  proceedings  in  the  Patent  Office 
as  quasi-judicial  in  their  nature  that  the  validity  of  the  legislation  which 
authorizes  appeals  to  the  Court  of  Appeals  from  the  decision  of  the  Com- 
missioner of  Patents  can  be  sustained.  Barratt  v.  Duall,  Commissioner  of 
Patents,  87  O.G.  1075. 

As  To  Refusal  To  Consider  Patentability  Final 

Sec.  24.  A  refusal  to  consider  patentability  in  cases  of  priority  does  not 
establish  the  conclusion  that  the  decision  of  the  Commissioner  upon 
questions  of  patentability  in  such  cases  is  final  and  conclusive.  Such 
questions  should  come  before  the  Court  by  regular  course  of  appeal. 
Breul  V.  Smith,  79  O.G.  153. 

As  To  Certain  Rights  Of  Party  Considered  Ancillary 

Sec.  25.  The  right  of  a  party  to  make  a  claim  will  be  considered  as  an 
ancillary  question  to  be  considered  in  awarding  priority  of  invention. 
United  States  of  America,  ex  rel,  The  Newcomb  Motor  Company  v.  Moore 
Co.,  133  O.G.  1680. 

As  To  Decisions  Confined  To  Matters  Considered  By  Commissioner 

Sec.  26.  The  Court  will  confine  its  decision  to  the  matter  passed  upon 
by  the  Commissioner  and  not  consider  the  question  of  abandonment,  prior 
public  cases,  and  anticipation  of  the  invention  which  have  not  been  acted 
on  in  the  Patent  Office.  Colhoun  v.  Hodgson,  70  O.G.  276;  Cutler  v. 
Leonard,   136  O.G.  438. 

As  To  Additional  Claim  Presented 

Sec.  27.  Whatever  practice  should  have  been  pursued  in  regard  to  the 
additional  claim  presented  for  the  first  time  to  the  Commissioner  in  person 
which  was  neither  considered  nor  rejected,  we  do  not  consider  that  we  are 
at  liberty  to  pass  upon  it  on  this  appeal.    Garrett,  122  O.G.  1047. 

As  To  Claim  Considered  By  The  Office 

Sec.  28.  Only  claims  considered  by  the  Office  will  be  considered  by  the 
Court  on  appeal.  As  to  bill  in  equity  see  Durhamy  v.  Seymour,  Commis- 
sioner of  Patents,  71  O.G.  601;  and  the  construction  given  by  the  Office 
adhered  to.    Breul  v.  Smith,  78  O.G.  1906. 

As  To  Distinction  Between  Rights  Of  Appeal  And  Refusal  Of  Patent 
Sec.  29.    The  right  of  appeal  in  case  of  the  refusal  of  a  patent  upon 


10  PRACTICE  NOTES  IN  APPEAL  CASES 

the  ground  of  non-patentability  of  the  claim,  and  refusal  of  a  patent 
because  of  interference  with  a  prior  right  of  invention,  are  distinct  rights. 
The  latter  does  not  involve  the  former.  This  is  clearly  indicated  in  the 
Revised  Statutes  of  the  United  States  section  49 11,  and  in  section  9  of  the 
act  of  Congress  of  February  9,  1893,  providing  for  the  organization  of 
this  Court.     Hisey  v.  Peters,  71  O.G.  892. 

As  To  Patentability  Not  Re-Considered 

Sec.  30.  The  Court  will  not  consider  the  question  of  patentability  a 
second  time  in  a  new  application  for  the  same  subject  matter.  Barratt  v. 
Duall,  Commissioner  of  Patents,  87  O.G.  1075. 

As  To  Consideration  Of  Final  Decisions 

Sec  31.  Only  appeals  from  final  decisions  considered.  Cross  v.  Phil- 
lips, 87  O.G.  1399;  Hulett  v.  Long,  89  O.G.  1141;  Westinghouse,  Jr.,  v. 
Duncan,  66  O.G.  1009. 

MOTIONS 

As  To  Delay 

Sec  32.  A  motion  to  dismiss  an  appeal  on  the  ground  that  it  was  taken 
in  bad  faith  for  the  purpose  of  delay  will  not  be  postponed  to  the  final 
hearing  if  a  prima  facie  case  is  made  out.    Jones  v.  Starr,  1 17  O.G.  1495. 

As  To  Appellee's  Right  To  Have  Cause  Dismissed 
Sec  33.  The  appellant  having  failed  to  have  his  cause  filed  and 
docketed,  on  motion  of  the  appellee  the  cause  was  docketed  and  dismissed. 
Cleaveland  v.  Wright,  79  O.G.  886;  Southall  v.  Seymour,  Com.,  79  O.G. 
1684;  McCreary  v.  Seymour,  Com.,  79  O.G.  1684;  Morrissey  v.  Seymour, 
Com.,  79  O.G.  1684. 

As  To  New  Trial 

Sec  34.  Court  will  entertain  a  motion  for  a  new  trial  pending  an 
appeal.    Practice,  Clement  v.  Richards  v.  Meissner,  111  O.G.  1627. 

ORDER 

As  To  Refusing  New  Trial 

Sec  35.  No  appeal  from  orders  refusing  a  new  trial  or  rehearing. 
Greenwood  v.  Dover,  109  O.G.  2172;  Messinger  v.  Commissioner  of  Pat- 
ents, 83  O.G.  1995. 

RECORD 

As  To  Content 
Sec  36.     Confined  to  the  record  made  up  in  the  Office.    Heroult,  127 
O.G.  3217. 


CONTENTS  OF  THE   RECORD  11 

As  To  Failure  To  Print 

Sec.  37.  Failure  to  print  transcript  of  record  is  ground  under  Court 
Rule  for  dismissing  appeal.  Munson  v.  Carper,  79  O.G.  160;  Pelton  v. 
Evered,  77  O.G.  16. 

As  To  Being  Public 

Sec.  38.  The  record  of  the  proceedings  in  the  Patent  Office  upon  being 
filed  with  the  clerk  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  becomes  a  public  record. 
Drawbaugh,  66  O.G.   1451. 

RULES 

As  To  Limitation  Of  Time 

Sec.  39.  The  Court  of  Appeals  was  duly  authorized  by  statute  to  make 
rules  limiting  the  time  of  appeal  from  the  decisions  of  the  Commissioner 
of  Patents.    77  O.G.  507. 


WEIGHT  GIVEN  COMMISSIONER'S  DECISIONS 

As  To  The  Rule  Of  The  Conclusiveness  Of  Facts 

Sec.  40.  On  questions  of  fact  the  concurrent  decisions  of  the  lower 
tribunals  will  be  taken  as  conclusive,  unless  the  contrary  is  clear. 

Cases  Reviewed 

Sec.  41.  Arnold  v.  Tyler,  79  O.G.  156;  Hisey  v.  Peters,  71  O.G.  892; 
Hien  v.  Buhoup,  81  O.G.  2088. 

Conception 
Sec.  42.     Ball  v.  Flora,  121  O.G.  2668. 

Diligence 

Sec.  43.  O'Connell  v.  Schmidt,  122  O.G.  2065;  Park  v.  Lewis,  O.G. 
2313. 

Disclosure 

Sec.  44.  Ostergren  v.  Tripler,  95  O.G.  837;  Schiipphaus  v.  Stevens, 
95  O.G.  1452;  Austin  v.  Johnson,  95  O.G.  2685;  Kilboum  v.  Hirner,  128 
O.G.  1689. 

Employer  &  Employee 

Sec.  45.  Orcutt  v.  McDonald,  Jr.,  and  McDonald,  23  O.G.  1287;  Ries  v. 
Kirkgaurd  and  Jehsen,  132  O.G.  845. 


12  practice  notes  in  appeal  cases 

Evidence 

Sec.  46.     Baur  v.  Crone,  120  O.G.  1824;  Bourn  v.  Hill,  Jr.,  123  OG 
1284. 

Identity  Of  Invention 

Sec.  47.     Bechman  v.  Southgate,  127  O.G.  1254;  Herman  v.  Pullman, 
109  O.G.  1888.    But  see  Beals  v.  Finkerhiner,  82  O.G.  598. 

Office  Practice 

5ec.  48.  Ritter  v.  Krakau  and  Connor,  Jr.,  114  O.  G.  1553;  Rosell  v. 
Allen,  92  O.G.  1036. 

Operativeness 

Sec.  49.  Stone  v.  Pupin,  100  O.G.  114;  Duryea  and  White  v.  Rice,  Jr., 
126  O.G.  1357. 

Originality 

Sec.  50.  Murphy  v.  Meissner,  1 14  O.G.  592;  Cleveland  v.  Wilkins,  123 
O.G.  1286. 

Patentability 

Sec.  51.  Weber  v.  Barry,  Jr.,  117  O.G.  1494;  Seeberger  v.  Dodge,  114 
O.G.  2382;  Beswick  v.  Commissioner,  91  O.G.  1437;  Latham  v.  Armat, 
95  O.G.  232;  Munster  v.  Ashworth,  28  O.G.  2088;  Clunies,  123  O.G.  2361 ; 
Adams,  1 14  O.G.  2093;  Dunbar  v.  Schellenger,  128  O.G.  2837.  (See  also 
section  1 1  under  "Subject  Matter.") 

Priority 
Sec.  52.     Clenn  v.  Adams,  83  O.G.  158. 

Reduction  To  Practice 

Sec.  53.  Howard  v.  Hey,  95  O.G.  1647;  Flora  v.  Powrie,  109  O.G. 
2668;  Esty  v.  Newton,  86  O.G.  799;  Munster  v.  Ashworth,  128  O.G.  2088; 
Richards  v.  Burkholder,  128  O.G.  2533;  Wickers  and  Furlong  v.  McKee, 
129  O.G.  869. 

As  To  Construction  Of  Rule 

Sec.  54.  The  rule  that  the  concurrent  decisions  of  the  Office  as  to  facts 
will  be  followed,  except  in  a  clear  case,  does  not  mean  that  the  Court  will 
be  bound  by  the  conclusions  from  such  facts.  O'Connell  v.  Schmidt,  122 
O.G.  2065;  Orcutt  v.  McDonald,  Jr.,  and  McDonald,  123  O.G.  705. 

As  To  Circumstances  When  Rule  Is  Followed 

Sec.  55.  The  rule  that  concurrent  decisions  in  the  Patent  Office  will 
be  followed,  is  especially  applicable  in  a  case  which  involves  complicated 
constructions  about  which  the  experts  of  the  Patent  Office  are  less  liable 


WEIGHT  GIVEN  COMMISSIONER'S  DECISIONS  13 

to  err  than  ourselves.     Lindmark  v.   Hodgkinson,    137   O.G.  228;   See- 
berger  v.  Dodge,  114  O.G.  2382. 

As  To  Conclusions  By  Different  Paths 

Sec.  56.  That  these  tribunals  have  reached  their  conclusions  by  differ- 
ent paths  does  not  detract  from  the  weight  to  be  given  to  their  decisions. 
Bourn  v.  Hill,  Jr.,  123  O.G.  1284. 

As  To  Reversability  Of  Erroneous  Conclusions 

Sec.  57.  Where  the  facts  are  admitted  and  a  mere  question  of  law  is 
involved,  the  Court  will  not  hesitate  to  reverse-  the  judgment  appealed 
from  if  convinced  that  an  erroneous  conclusion  was  reached.  Woods  v. 
Poor,  130  O.G.  1313. 


Mandamus 

As  To  Time  Limit     . 

Sec.  58.  Where  a  party  delays  beyond  the  time  limited  to  take  his 
appeal,  mandamus  will  not  lie  to  the  Supreme  Court  to  compel  the  Court 
of  Appeals  to  entertain  the  appeal.     Hein,  79  O.G.  507. 

As  To  Not  Being  The  Remedy 

Sec.  59.  A  mandamus  to  compel  the  Court  of  Appeals  to  hear  appeal 
from  Commissioner  on  question  of  division  not  the  remedy.  It  should  be 
to  the  Examiners-in-Chief  in  the  first  place.     Frasch,  109  O.G.  554. 

As  To  Remedy  To  Alternate  With  Appeal 

Sec.  60.  Mandamus  is  not  alterante  remedy  with  appeal.  United 
States,  ex  rel.,  Tuttle  v.  Allen,  Commissioner  of  Patents,  126  O.G.  760. 

As  The  Remedy 

Sec.  61.  Mandamus  to  the  Commissioner  on  appeal  to  the  Court,  the 
remedy  where  an  appeal  to  the  Board  is  denied.  Frasch,  109  O.G.  554. 
No  appeal  as  to  the  division  of  an  application.    Frasch,  100  O.G.  1977. 

As  To  Remedy  Being  Final  In  Court  Of  Appeals 

Sec.  62.  No  appeal  can  be  taken  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  from  a  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  refusing  a  mandamus  to 
compel  the  Commissioner  to  register  a  trade-mark.  The  United  States,  ex 
Tel.,  the  State  of  South  Carolina  v.  Seymour,  Commissioner,  67  O.G.  1191. 


14  PRACTICE  NOTES  IN  APPEAL  CASES 

Effect  of  the  Decision  of  the  Court 
On  the  Commissioner 

As  To  Decisions  Of  The  Court  Binding 

Sec  63.  The  Commissioner  is  bound  to  follow  the  decision  above  upon 
those  points  only  which  were  raised  by  the  appeal,  and  upon  no  other. 

It  is  for  a  judge  to  say  that  a  decision  of  the  Commissioner  shall  be 
affirmed  or  reversed,  not  to  say  that  a  patent  shall  or  shall  not  issue.  Abra- 
ham V.  Fletcher,  69  C.  D.  50. 

As  To  Finding  Of  Facts  Of  The  Court  Binding  On  Commissioner 

Sec  64.  The  Office  is  bound  to  take  notice  of  the  decision  of  the  Court 
and  may  base  its  action  upon  the  finding  of  facts  contained  therein.  Tour- 
nier,  108  O.G.  798. 

As  To  Dissolution 

Sec  65.  After  a  decision  by  the  Court  of  Appeals  it  is  too  late  to  dis- 
solve for  lack  of  interference  in  fact.    Gilbart,  85  O.G.  454. 

As  To  Rehearing  Concerning  Priority 

Sec  66.  It  is  conceivable  that  a  case  might  arise  where  the  Com- 
missioner might  grant  a  rehearing  after  a  decision  by  the  Court  of  Appeals 
on  the  question  of  priority.     Scott  v.  Brooks,  71  O.G.  1314. 

As  To  Case  Re-Opened  Under  Unusual  Circumstances 

Sec  67.  After  an  appeal  to  the  Court  of  Appeals  refusing  the  allow- 
ances of  certain  claims,  a  case  will  not  be  re-opened  for  the  consideration 
of  additional  claims  except  under  unusual  circumstances.  That  the  Court 
put  an  interpretation  on  the  claims  not  contemplated  by  applicant  not  suf- 
ficient.   Milans,  135  O.G.  1122. 

As  To  Refusal  Of  Patent  After  Appeal  On  Priority 

Sec  68.  After  an  appeal  on  the  question  of  priority,  the  Commissioner 
may  refuse  a  patent  to  the  successful  party.  Sobey  v.  Holsclaw,  126  O.G. 
3041. 


Time  Limit  Rules 

As  To  Limitation  Of  Time  For  Appeal 

Sec  69.  This  rule  limits  the  time  in  which  the  appeal  must  be  taken  to 
forty  days  from  the  date  of  the  order  appealed  from  ,excluding  the  day  of 
date.    Burton  v.  Bentley,  87  O.G.  2326. 


TIME  LIMIT  RULES  15 

As  To  No  ExTENTioN  Of  Time 

Sec.  70.  The  Office  has  no  power  to  extend  time.  Clement  v.  Richards 
V.  Meissner,  111  O.G.  1626-7. 

As  To  Computing  Legal  Holidays 

Sec.  71.  Saturday  after  12  o'clock  is  a  legal  holiday  and  is  to  be  com- 
puted as  one  half  day.    Ocumpaugh  v,  Norton,  114  O.G.  545. 

As  To  Exception 

Sec.  72.  A  party  allowed  to  prosecute  his  appeal  when  notice  was  filed 
one  day  late.    Proutt  v.  Johnston  and  Johnston,  130  O.G.  2118. 

As  To  Forty  Days  Rule 

Sec.  73.  The  rule  that  all  appeals  taken  from  the  Commissioner  of 
Patents  shall  be  taken  within  40  days  from  the  date  of  the  ruling  and  not 
afterward  is  a  positive  law  to  the  Court  and  to  the  suitors  therein.  Ross 
V.  Soewer,  77  O.G.  2141;  Bryant  v.  Seymour,  Com.  of  Patents,  77  O.G. 
1599. 

As  To  Commencement  Of  Action 

Sec.  74.  The  two  years  allowed  for  an  action  by  R.  S.  4894  is  not 
applicable  to  appeals  to  the  Court  of  Appeals.    77  O.G.  1600. 

As  To  New  Trial 

Sec.  75.  The  running  of  the  time  limited  for  appeal  is  not  arrested  by  a 
motion  for  a  new  trial.    Ross  v.  Soewer,  77  O.G.  2141. 

As  To  Lapse  Of  Time  In  Rehearing 

Sec.  76.  Whenever  the  time  for  appeal  has  gone  by  the  time  for  rehear- 
ing has  elapsed  with  it.    Scott  v.  Brooks,  71  O.G.  1314. 


Miscellaneous 

As  To  Court's  Control  Of  Assignment 

Sec.  77.  The  Court  cannot  control  the  description  of  the  Commissioner 
as  to  the  length  of  argument  he  should  permit.  Sobey  v.  Holsclaw,  126 
O.G.  3041. 

As  To  Court  Being  Powerless  To  Direct  Action  Of  Executive  Officer 

Sec.  78.  The  Court  is  powerless  to  direct  the  action  of  an  executive 
officer  unless  a  positive  legal  right  is  being  invaded  by  the  officer  where 
the  duty  imposed  upon  him  is  clearly  prescribed  and  enjoined  by  law. 
The  duty,  however,  must  be  so  plain  and  pointed  that  the  officer  has  no 


16  PRACTICE  NOTES  IN  APPEAL.  CASES 

discretion  left.     (Merriel  on  Mandamus,  p.  64.)   Moore,  Com.  of  Pats., 
V.  U.  S.  ex  rel,  Boyer,  138  O.G.  530. 

As  To  Court's  Allowance  Of  Writ  Of  Error  Or  Appeal 

Sec  79.  Neither  writ  of  error  or  appeal  will  be  allowed  by  this  Court. 
Decision  not  to  prejudice  an  application  to  any  one  of  the  justices  of  the 
Supreme  Court,     Rousseau  v.  Brown,  104  O.G.  1122. 

As  To  Court's  Acceptance  Of  Commissioner's  Decision 

Sec.  80.  The  two  lower  tribunals  of  the  Office  held  that  the  inventions 
were  the  same,  and  the  Commissioner  that  they  were  different,  the  theory 
of  the  Commissioner  accepted  without  enquiry.  Cushman  v.  Lines,  78 
O.G.  2051. 

As  To  Court's  Discretion  To  Relieve  Against  Default 

Sec.  81.  Judgment  in  an  interference  proceeding  will  not  be  made 
final  by  the  Office  after  the  filing  of  a  notice  of  appeal,  on  the  ground  that 
it  was  filed  one  day  late,  it  being  regarded  as  being  within  the  discretion 
of  the  Court  to  relieve  against  the  default.  Proutt  v.  Johnston  and  John- 
ston, 130  O.G.  2718. 

As  To  Court's  Power  To  Award  Costs 

Sec.  82.  The  Court  has  no  power  to  award  costs.  Wells  v.  Reynolds, 
69  O.G.  1507. 

As  To  Where  Record  Has  No  Bearing  In  Case 

Sec.  83.  When  a  record  was  introduced,  but  on  an  examination  found 
to  have  no  bearing  in  the  case,  it  must  be  at  the  cost  of  the  one  offering 
it.     Stevens  v.  Seher,  81  O.G.  1932. 

As  To  Res  Adjudicata  Based  On  General  Assignment  Of  Error 

Sec.  84.  A  general  assignment  of  error  in  appeal  from  the  Examiner 
to  the  Board  is  sufficient  to  base  the  question  of  res  adjudicata  upon,  or 
it  might  have  been  raised  by  the  Board  on  its  own  motion.  Carroll  v. 
Hallwood,  135  O.G.  896. 

As  To  Presumption  Of  Acquiesence  In  Decision 

Sec.  85.  B.  has  appealed  but  his  assignment  of  errors  does  not  chal- 
lenge the  decision  of  the  Commissioner  on  the  question  of  priority  of 
invention  "and  to  this  extent  he  is  presumed  to  have  asquiesed  in  the 
decision  against  him."    Bechman  v.  Wood,  15  App.D.C.  487. 

As  To  Patentability  Being  Reserved 

Sec.  86.  (In  an  interference  case)  "The  present  is  no  more  than  a 
moot  cause  since  upon  the  face  of  the  record  itself  the  question  of  pat- 
entability has  been  expressly  reserved  for  further  and  future  consider- 
ation."    Oliver  v.  Felbel,  100  O.G.  2384. 


MISCELLANEOUS  DECISIONS  17 

As  To  Time  Allowance  Not  Prejudicial 

Sec.  87.  A  party  may  take  advantage  of  all  the  time  allowed  by  law 
without  prejudicing  his  case.    Jones  v.  Starr,  117  O.G.  1495. 

As  To  Assignment  Of  Trade-Mark 

Sec.  88.  An  assignment  of  a  trade-mark  permitted  after  notice  and 
before  appeal  is  perfected.    Levy  &  Co.  v.  Uri,  131  O.G.  1689. 

As  To  Consideration  Of  Affidavit  Concerning  Changes  In  Drawing 

Sec.  89.  We  will  not  consider  affidavits  filed  either  in  this  Court  or  the 
Patent  Office  relating  to  changes  that  have  occurred  in  drawings,  models, 
experimental  machines  and  like  exhibits.  These  matters  must  be  wholly 
settled  in  the  Patent  Office.  (Blackford  v.  Wilder,  104  O.G.  580.)  Green- 
wood v.  Dover,  109  O.G.  2173;  Willsin  v.  Bradshaw,  91  O.G.  648. 

As  To  Verification  By  Attorney 

Sec.  90.  Affidavit  verified  before  notary  who  was  also  attorney  in  the 
case  is  invalid.  The  prohibition  of  attorneys  acting  as  notaries  in  the  Code 
of  the  District  applies  to  attorneys  outside  of  the  District.  The  Hall  Safe 
Co.  v.  Herring-Hall-Marvin  Safe  Co.,  135  O.G.  1804. 

As  To  Preliminary  Statement 

Sec.  91.  Appeal  from  a  decision  upon  the  right  to  amend  preliminary 
statement.     Cross  v.  Phillips,  87  O.G.  1399. 


PATENT  CITATOR 

FOR 

APPEAL  CASES 


(Alphabetical  List  of  Defendants  on  Pag:e  47) 


Adams  ,1 14  O.G.  2093, 

Orcutt    V.     McDonald,     Jr., 

and    McDonald ,123  O.G.   1288, 

Parkes     v.     Lewis 11:^10.0.2313, 

In    re    Clunies 123  O.G.   2631, 

Adams  v.  Murphy ,  96  O.G.    845, 

Winter    v.    Slick    v.    VoU- 

kommer     ,107  O.G.   1660, 

Ocumpaugh    v.    Norton ...,  110  O.G.   1724, 

Alexander  v.  Blackman.  .  .,121  O.G.  1979, 

Allen,  Com.  of  Pat.,  v.  U. 
S.  ex  rel.,  Regina  Music 
Box   Co ,105  O.G.    747, 

Allen,  Com.  of  Pat.,  v.  U.  S. 
ex  rel.,  Lowry  and  Plant- 
ers Compress  Co ,116  O.G.  2253, 

Egly   V.   Schultze 117  O.G.  277, 

Pohle    V.    McKnight 119  O.G.  2521, 

Podlesak   and   Podlesak   v. 

Mclnnerney    120  O.G.  2129, 

Noble    V.    Sessions 121   O.G.  1343, 

Miel    V.    Young 121   O.G.  1350, 

Lowry      and      Cowley      v. 

Spoon     122  O.G.  2688, 

Browne   v.   Stroud 122  O.G.  2689, 

Brown  v.  Hodgkinson ,123  O.G.  2973, 

Hawkins     v.     Coleman     v. 

Thullen    133  O.G.  1188, 

U.    S.    of    Am.,    ex    rel.    the 

Newcomb     Moto     Co.    v. 

Moore,  Com.  of  Pat 133  O.G.  1682, 

McKeen    v.    Jerdone 1.34  O.G.  2027, 

Am.  Circular  Loom  Co..  .  .,126  O.G.  2191, 
Am.  Circular  Loom  Co..  .  .,127  O.G.    393, 

Am.  Glue  Co ,123  O.G.    999, 

Am.  Stove  Co.  v.  Det.  Stove 

Co ,134  O.G.  2245, 

McKillop  V.   Fetzer ,  136  O.G.   1770, 

Am.  St.  Pack  Co.  v.  Johns- 

Manville    Co ,137  O.G.    978, 

Natural  Food  Co.  v.  Will- 
iams     133  O.G.     232, 

Kentucky  Dist.  &  Ware- 
house Co.  V.  Old  Lexing- 
ton   Club    Dist.    Co ,135  O.G.     220, 


1905  CD.  602,  24  App.D.C.  275 

1906  CD.  705,  27  App.D.C.  228 
1906  CD.  735,  28  App.D.C.  1 
1906  CD.  740,  28  App.D.C   18 

1901  CD.  401,  18  App.D.C.  172 


1903  CD.  477, 

1904  CD.   207, 


App.D.C. 
24  App.D.C.   296 


1906  CD.  602,  26  App.D.C  541 


1903  CD.  615,   22  App.D.C.  271 


1905  CD.  643,  26  App.D.C.      8 

1905  CD.   237,  App.D.C. 

1905  CD.   549,  30  App.D.C.      92 

1906  CD.  558,  26  App.D.C.  399 
1906  CD.  119,      App.D.C 
1906  CD.  124,  29  App.D.C.  481 


1906  CD. 
1906  CD. 
1906  CD. 

224 
226! 
290, 

App.D.C. 
App.D.C. 
App.D.C. 

1908  CD. 

- 

App.D.C 

1908  CD. 
1908  CD. 

; 

30 

App.D.C. 
App.D.C. 

464 

1906  CD.  ,  28  App.D.C.  446 
1906  CD.  ,  28  App.D.C.  450 
1906  CD.  695,  27  App.D.C.  391 


1908  CD. 

1908  CD. 


31  App.D.C.  304 

App.D.C 


30  App.D.C   348 

31  App.D.C.  223 


20 


PATENT  CITATOR  FOR  APPEAL  CASES 


Ams    

Anderson  v.  Wells 

Andrew  McLean' Co.  v.  Mfg 
Co 


Andrews  v.  Nilson 

Gordon    v.    Wentworth , 

Appert  V.  Schmertz. 


Appert  V.  Schmertz.... 
Reichenbach  v.  Kelley. 
Tyler  v.  St.  Araand.... 
Bowen    V.    Hill,    Jr 


Arnold  v.  Tyler 

Ascencio  v.  Russell 

Lutz    V.    Lewis 

Atkins  &  Co 

McKillopp    V.    Fetzer.. 

Austin  V.  Johnson 

Wyman    v.    Donnelly.. 
Browning.  .  . 


Luger    V. 

Paul    V.    Johnson. 


Backus  etc.  Co.  v.  Simonds 

In    re    Hine 

In  re  Haines 


Bader  v.  Vajen. 


Paul    V.    Jolmson. 

Paul    V.    Johnson 

Basch  V.  Hammond... 
Hammond  v.  Basch... 
Parker   v.    Lewis 


Baker 


Ball  V.  Flora.  . . 

Ball    V.    Flora. 
Ball    V.    Flora. 


127  O.G.  3644, 
122  O.G.  3014, 


1907  CD.   ,  29App.D.C.  91 
1906  CD.  667,  27  App.D.C  115 


136  O.G. 


123 

135 

84 

8.3 

04 

04 

123 

79 

112 

110 

110 

1.36 

95 

10.3 
104 
100 

66 

.58 
01 

87 

100 

100 
113 
115 
123 


O.G. 

O.G. 

O.G, 

O.G. 
O.G. 
O.G. 
O.G. 

O.G, 
O.G, 

O.G. 

O.G. 

O.G. 

O.G 

O.G. 
O.G. 
O.G. 

O.G 

O.G. 
O.G. 

O.G 

O.G. 
O.G. 
O.G. 
O.G. 
O.G. 


121  O.G 


121 

117 
117 


O.G 

O.G. 
O.G. 


Barratt  v.   Duell,   Com.   of 
Pat ,  79 

Kenney    118 

Blackford  v.  Wilder 127 

Millett    V.    Reed 128 

Barratt   v.    Seymour,    Com. 
of    Pat ,  79 

Smith  V.  Duell,  Com.  of 
Pat ,    87 

Barratt  v.  Duell,  Com.  of 
Pat 87 

Barratt  v.  Seymour,  Com. 
of    Pat 00 

Rosell  V.  Allen ,    02 

Barstow  Stove  Co.  v.   Det. 

Stove    Works    and    Am. 

Stove  Co ,134 

Battle  Creek  etc.  v.  Fuller,  134 
Bauer  v.  Crone ,120 

Bauer    v.    Crone Ill 

Beals  V.  Finkenbiner ,  82 

Greenwood    v.    Dover 108 

Barrett  v.    Harter 112 

Blackman    v.    Alexander ..,  113 
Alexander   v.    Blackman  ..,  121 


O.G. 

O.G. 
O.G. 
O.G. 

O.G, 

O.G. 

O.G. 

O.G. 
O.G. 


O.G, 
O.G, 
O.G, 

O.G. 

O.G 

O.G. 
O.G. 
O.G. 
O.G. 


440, 

1667, 

1123, 

508, 

1511, 

1188, 
1070, 
1286, 

156, 
955, 

2015, 

2015, 

1770, 

2685, 

650. 
1124, 

800, 

1893, 

385, 
2571, 

1235, 

2015, 

800, 

552, 

806, 
2313, 

1352, 

2668, 

2362. 

2088, 

1075, 

2254, 
1256, 
2836, 

2020, 

805, 

1075, 

1158, 
1038, 


2245, 

1299, 
1824, 

1030, 

549, 

2144, 

732, 

1708, 

1070, 


1908  CD. 
1906  CD. 

1008  CD. 

1898  CD. 

1808  CD. 
1001  CD. 
1001  CD. 
1006  CD. 

1897  CD. 
1904  CD. 

1004   CD. 

1904  CD. 

1008  CD. 

1901  CD. 

1003   CD. 

1003  CD. 

1004  CD. 


717, 

524, 

524, 
282, 
301, 

349, 
676, 


1894 

1802 
1000 

1899 

1003 
1004 
1004 
1005 
1006 

1906 


CD. 

CD. 
CD. 

CD. 

CD. 
CD. 
CD. 
CD. 
CD. 

CD. 


1906  CD. 

1005  CD. 
1005  CD. 


391, 

05, 

503, 

610, 

211, 
11, 

102, 

329, 

.380. 
610, 
474, 
615, 
735, 

594, 

618, 

280, 
280, 


31  App. 

27  App. 

App. 

13  App. 

13  App. 
17  App. 

17  App. 
App. 

10  App 
24  App. 

App. 

29  App. 

App. 

18  App, 

21  App. 
21  App. 
23  App. 

2  App, 

App, 
App. 

14  App, 

App. 

23  App. 
App. 

24  App. 

28  App. 

26  App 
26  App 

26  App. 
26  App 


D.C  509 
,D.C.451 

D.C 

D.C  117 

D.C  117 
D.C.  333 
D.C.  464 
D.C. 

.D.C  175 
.D.C  105 

D.C 

.D.C  385 

D.C 

D.C    83 

D.C  81 
D.C.  201 
D.C.   187 

D.C  290 

D.C 
D.C. 

.D.C  241 

D.C 

D.C  187 
D.C 

D.C  460 
D.C        1 

.D.C  363 
.D.C  394 

D.C  304 
D.C.   304 


1899  CD.  320,  14  App.D.C  255 

1005  CD.  441,  App.D.C. 

1007  CD.  ,  21   App.D.C.        1 

1007  CD.  ,  App.D.C. 

1897  CD.  506,  11  App.D.C.  177 

1809  CD.  313,  14  App.D.C.   181 

1890  CD.   320,  14  App.D.C.  255 

1807  CD.  506,  11   App.D.C.   177 

1900  CD.   333,  16  App.D.C.  559 


1908  CD. 

1908  CD. 
1906  CD.  545, 

1004   CD.   336, 

1898  CD.  326, 

1004  CD.  66, 

1004  CD.  302, 

1003  CD.  521, 

1006  CD.  602, 


31  App.D.C  304 
30  App.D.C  41 1 
26  App.D.C  352 

26  App.D.C.   352 

12  App.D.C    23 

23  App.D.C.   251 

24  App.D.C.  300 
26  App.D.C.  541 
26  App.D.C.   541 


PATENT  CITATOR  FOR  APPEAL,  CASES 


21 


Bechman  v.  Southgate ,127  O.G.  1254, 

Beckman    v.    Southgate ...,  12;{  O.G.  2309, 

Bechman  v.  Wood ,  89  O.G.  2459, 

Bechman  v.  Wood 87  O.G.  1073, 

Bechman  v.  Wood...' 87  O.G.  1074, 

McBerty  v.  Cook !)0  O.G.  2295, 

Newton   v.   Woodward 93  O.G.  2320, 

Walsh   V.   Hallbauer 94   O.G.  224, 

Schiipphaus   v.    Stevens...,    95  O.G.  1454, 

Lug'er    V.    Browning 104  O.G.  1124, 

Seeberger   v.    Dodge 114  O.G.  2383, 

Scott     117  O.G.  278, 

Bechman    v.    Southgate.  ...  123  O.G.  2309, 

Jansson    v.    Larsson 132  O.G.  477, 

Bechman  v.  Wood ,  89  O.G.  2462, 

Bechman    v.    Wood 81  O.G.  2087, 

Bender  V.  Hoffmann 85  O.G.  1738, 

Bechman    v.    Wood ,    87  O.G.  1073, 

Bechman    v.    Wood 87  O.G.  1074, 

Calm     87  O.G.  1397, 

Calm     87  O.G.  1398, 

Bechman    v.    Wood 89  O.G.  2459, 

Bechman    v.    Wood 89  O.G.  2462, 

McBerty    v.    Cook 90  O.G.  2295, 

Horton    v.     Summer !)2  O.G.  2340. 

Newton     v.    Woodward...,    93  O.G.  2320, 

Walsh     V.     Hallbauer 94  O.G.  224, 

Ostergren  et  al.  v.  Tripler,    95  O.G.  837, 

Schiipphaus   v.    Stevens...,    95  O.G.  1454, 

Luger    V.    Browning 100  O.G.  231, 

Luger    V.    Browning 104  O.G.  1124, 

Gaily    V.    Brand ,  113  O.G.  851, 

Furman    v.    Dean 114   O.G.  1553, 

Seeberger    v.     Dodge ,  114  O.G.  2383, 

Scott     117  O.G.  278, 

Beckman    v.    Southgate ....  123  O.G.  2309, 

Bechman    v.    .Southgate ...,  Iii7  O.G.  1254, 

Horine    v.    Wende 129  O.G.  2861, 

Bedford  v.  Duel!,  Com.  of 
Pat ,  87  O.G.  1611, 

Bernardin  v.  Seymour,  Com. 
of  Pat ,  79  O.G.  1190, 

U.   S.   ex   rel.,   Bernardin  v. 

Duell,    Com.   of    Pat S(>  O.G.  990, 

Poole    v.    Avery 87  O.G.  360, 

Beswick  v.  Duell,  Com.  of 

Pat ,  91  O.G.    436, 

stone    V.    Pupin 100  O.G.  1114, 

Blackford  v.  Wilder ,104  O.G.    578, 

Blackford    v.    Wilder 99  O.G.  2769, 

Blackford    v.    Wilder 1(»4   O.G.  581, 

Blackford    v.    Wilder ,  lo4  O.G.  578, 

Robinson    v.    Seelinger.  .  .,  114   O.G.  263, 

Robin.son    v.    Seelinger ...,  110  O.G.  1736, 

Blackford    v.    Wilder 124   O.G.  319, 

Blackford    v.    Wilder 127   O.G.  12.55, 

Blackford  v.  Wilder ,104  O.G.    580, 

Blackford    v.    Wilder 99  O.G.  2709, 

Blackford    v.    Wilder 104   O.G.  578. 

Dow    v.    Converse 106  O.G.  2292. 

Greenwood    v.    Dover 109   O.G.  2173, 

Blackford    v.    Wilder 124  O.G.  319, 

Blackford    v.    Wilder 127  O.G.  1255, 

Horine    v.    Wende 129  O.G.  2860. 

Sherwood    v.    Drewson.  .  ..  1.30  O.G.  660, 

Degen  v.   Pfadt 133  O.G.  514. 


1906  CD 

> 

28 

App.D.C  405 

1906 

CD. 

270, 

28 

App.D.C. 

405 

1899  CD 

453, 

15 

App.D.C 

.484 

1899 

CD. 

99, 

15 

App.D.C 

484 

1899 

C.U. 

102, 

15 

App.D.C 

484 

1900 

CD. 

248. 

10 

App.D.C. 

133 

1900 

CD. 

400, 

17 

App.D.C. 

34 

1901 

CD. 

9, 

App.D.C. 

1901 

CD. 

305, 

17 

App.D.C. 

548 

1904 

CD. 

593, 

21 

App.D.C. 

201 

1905 

CD. 

603. 

24 

App.D.C. 

470 

1905 

CD. 

4, 

25 

App.D.C. 

307 

1906 

CD. 

270. 

28 

App.D.C 

405 

1907 

CD. 

. 

30 

App.D.C. 

203 

1899  CD.  459, 

15 

App.D.C  484 

1897 

CD. 

188. 

15 

App.D.C 

484 

1898 

CD. 

262. 

App.D.C. 

1899 

CD. 

99, 

15 

App.D.C. 

484 

1899 

CD. 

102. 

15 

App.D.C. 

484 

1899 

CD. 

105, 

App.D.C. 

1899 

CD. 

105, 

App.D.C. 

1899 

CD. 

453, 

15 

App.D.C. 

484 

1899 

CD. 

459, 

15 

App.D.C. 

484 

1900 

CD. 

248, 

16 

App.D.C. 

133 

1900 

CD. 

152. 

App.D.C. 

1900 

CD. 

406. 

17 

App.D.C. 

34 

1901 

CD. 

9. 

App.D.C. 

1901 

CD. 

350, 

17 

App.D.C. 

.557 

1901 

CD. 

365, 

17 

App.D.C. 

548 

1902 

CD. 

230, 

21 

App.D.C 

201 

1904 

CD. 

593, 

21 

App.D.C. 

201 

1904 

CD. 

488, 

App.D.C. 

1904 

CD. 

305, 

24 

App.D.C. 

277 

1905 

CD. 

603, 

24 

App.D.C. 

476 

1905 

CD. 

4, 

25 

App.D.C. 

307 

1906 

CD. 

270, 

28 

App.D.C. 

405 

1906 

CD. 

270, 

28 

App.D.C 

405 

1907 

CD. 

■ 

29 

App.D.C. 

415 

1899  CD 

357, 

14 

App.D.C  376 

1897  CD.  428,    10  App.D.C.  294 

379 


1899  CD. 
1899  CD. 


287. 
255. 


13  App.D.C 
App.D.C. 


1900  CD.  294,    16  App.D.C  345 

1902   CD.   550,        19   App.D.C.   396 


1903  CD 

567,    21 

App.D.C 

1902  CD. 

204 

21 

App.D.C 

1 

1903  CD. 

573 

28 

App.D.C. 

535 

1903  CD. 

567 

28 

App.D.C. 

535 

1904  CD. 

10 

25 

App.D.C 

237 

1905   CD. 

10 

25 

App.D.C. 

237 

1906  CD. 

.304 

21 

App.D.C. 

1 

1907  CD. 

28 

App.D.C 

535 

1903  CD 

573,   21 

App.D.C 

1902  CD. 

204 

21 

App.D.C 

1 

1902  CD. 

573 

28 

App.D.C. 

.535 

1903  CD. 

404 

App.D.C. 

1904  CD. 

00 

23 

App.D.C 

251 

1906  CD. 

304 

21 

App.D.C. 

1 

1907  CD. 

28 

App.D.C. 

535 

1907  CD. 

29 

App.D.C. 

415 

1907  CD. 

29 

App.D.C. 

161 

1908  CD. 

App.D.C. 

22  PATENT  CITATOR  FOR  APPEAL  CASES 

Blackford  V.  Wilder ,104O.G.    582,  1903  CD.  578,  21  App.D.C.      1 

Blackford  v.  Wilder 99  O.G.  2769,  1902  CD.  204,  21  App.D.C.   1 

Blackford  v.  Wilder 1(J4  O.G.   578,  1903  CD.  567,  28  App.D.C.  535 

Blackford  v.  Wilder 104  O.G.   580,  1903  CD.  573,  28  App.D.C.  535 

Blackford  v.  Wilder 124  O.G.   319,  1906  CD.  304,  28  App.D.C.  535 

Blackford  v.  Wilder 127  O.G.  1255,  1907  CD.    ,  28  App.D.C.  535 

Blackford  v.  Wilder ,127  O.G.  1255,  1907  CD.        ,  28  App.D.C  535 

Becker    v.    Otis ,  129  O.G.   1267,  1907  CD.          ,  App.D.C. 

U.    S.    of    A.    ex    rel.,    The 

Newcomb    Motor    Co.    v. 

Allen,  (Edward  B.  Moore 

substituted)       Com.       of 

Pat 130  O.G.     303,  1907  CD.          ,  30  App.D.C.  464 

Mattice    v.    Longworth. . .,  132  O.G.     678,  1907  CD.         ,  App.D.C. 

135  O.G.      449,  1908  CD.          ,  App.D.C. 

Bliss  V.  McElroy ,1280.G.    458,  1907C.D.        ,  29  App.D.C  120 

Bluthenthal    v.    Beckart    v. 

Bigbie  Bro.  &  Co ,130  O.G.  2068,  1907  CD.        ,  30  App.D.C.  1 18 

Bossart  V.  Pohl ,135  O.G.    453,  1908  CD.        ,  31  App.D.C.  218 

Bourn  V.  Hill  Jr ,123  O.G.  1284,  1906  CD.  699,  27  App.D.C.  291 

Braunstein  V.  Holmes ,133  O.G.  1937,  1908C.D.        ,  30  App.D.C.  328 

Breul  V.   Smith ,78  O.G.  1906,  1897  CD.  332,  10  App.D.C.  180 

Breul    V.    Smith 78  O.G.   1904,  1897  CD.        3,  10  App.D.C.   180 

Smith    V.    Warner 85  O.G.      151,  1898  CD.  213,  App.D.C. 

Breul    V.    Smith 86  O.G.   1635,  1899  CD.      44,  10  App.D.C.   180 

Hance    Brothers    &   White,    87  O.G.     698,  1899  CD.     92,  App.D.C. 

Tracy   et  al.    v.   Leslie 87  O.G.     891,  1899  CD.   306,  14   App.D.C.   126 

Tracv   et   al.   v.   Leslie 87  O.G.     893,  1899  CD.   306,  14   App.D.C.   126 

Rosell    V.    Allen 92  O.G.   1038,  1900  CD.   333,  16  App.D.C.   559 

Breul    V.    Smith ,    84   O.G.      809,  1898  CD.   124,  App.D.C. 

Breul    V.    Smith 86  O.G.   1635,  1S99  CD.      44,  10  App.D.C.   180 

Briede    ,123  O.G.    322,  1906  CD.  677,  27  App.D.C.  298 

Heroult  127  O.G.  3219,  1907  CD.    ,  5  App.D.C.  90 

Heroult  ,  127  O.G.  3220,  1907  CD.    ,  5  App.D.C.  90 

Briggs  V.  Seymour,  Com.  of 

Pat ,  78  O.G.    169,  1897C.D.211,  9  App.D.C.  478 

Smith    V.     Duell,     Com.     of 

Pat ,    87  O.G.     893,  1899  CD.   313,  14  App.D.C.   181 

Smith    V.    Duell,     Com.     of 

Pat ,    87  O.G.     894,  1899  CD.   313,  14  App.D.C.   181 

Lowry    v.    Duell,    Com.    of 

Pat 88  O.G.     718,  1899  CD.  410,  14  App.D.C.  473 

Brill  V.  Wash.  R.  &  E.  Co.J34  0.G.  1563,  1908  CD.        ,  30  App.D.C.  255 

Brown  v.  Fessenden ,137  O.G.  1482, 

Winslow  V.   Auirtin 86  O.G.  2171,  14  App.D.C.   137 

Gallagher    v.    Hastings.  ..,  103  O.G.   1165,  21  App.D.C.     88 

Bronson  Co.  V.  Duell ,  95  O.G.    229,  1901  CD.  330,  17  App.D.C.  471 

Brown  V.  Blood ,105  O.G.    976,  1903  CD.  617,  22  App.D.C.  216 

Brown-Forman  Co.  v.  Dist. 

Co ,1340.G.  1565,  1908C.D.        ,  30  App.D.C.  485 

Bryant  v.  Seymour,  Com.  of 

Pat ,77  O.G.  1599,  1896  CD.  648,  9  App.D.C.  447 

Buchanan-Anderson-Nelson 

Co.  V.  Breen  &  Kennedy,  124  O.G.    322,  1906  CD.  750,  27  App.D.C.  573 

Burr  V.Ford ,  70  O.G.    275,  1895  CD.  120,  5  App.D.C.    26 

Burson  v.  Vogel ,131  O.G.    942,  1907  CD.        ,  29  App.D.C.  388 


PATENT  CITATOR  FOR  APPEAL  CASES  23 

Burton  v.  Bentley ,  87  O.G.  2326,  1 899  CD.  393,  1 4  App.D.C.  47 1 

Wliipple    V.     Sharpe 98  O.G.     22(5,  1902  CD.       2.  App.D.C. 

Busch  V.  Jones ,  16  App.D.C.    23 

Butterfield ,  1 08  O.G.  1 589,  1 904  CD.  585,  23  App.D.C    84 

Cahn,  Belt  &  Co ,122  0.0.    354,  1906  CD.  627,  27  App.D.C.  173 

Cahn,    Belt    &    Company ..,  118  O.G.   1930,  lyo.j   CD.   422,  27  App.D.C.    173 

Cain  V.  Park 86  O.G.    797,  1899  CD.  278,  14  App.D.C.    42 

Christensen    v.    Noyes 90  O.G.     226,  1900  CD.   212,  15  App.D.C.     91 

Carroll  V.  Hallwood ,135  O.G.    896,  1908  CD.        ,  31  App.D.C  165 

Carpenter    ,112  O.G.    503,  1904  CD.  669,  24  App.D.C.  110 

Chapman     ,  120  O.G.   244G,  1906  CD.      79,  App.D.C 

Carpenter      110  O.G.   2233,  1904   CD.  23.5,  24   App.D.C.   110 

Carty  v.  Kellogg ,  74  O.G.    657,  1896  CD.  188,  7  App.D.C.  542 

Cartv    V.    Kellogg 73  O.G.      285,  1895  CD.      83,  7  App.D.C   542 

Ostergren  et  al.  v.  Tripler,    95  O.G.      838,  1901   CD.   350,  17   App.D.C.   557 

Haskell    v.    Miner    v.    Ball,  109  O.G.   2171,  1904   CD.   131,  App.D.C. 
Trufant       v.       Prindle       v. 

Brown    ,111   O.G.   1035,  1904  CD.  282,  App.D.C. 

Case  Bros.  v.  Murphy  &  Co.,  136  O.G.    228,  1908  CD.        ,  31  App.D.C.  245 

Chase  &  McKenzie ,135  O.G.    895,  1908  CD.        ,  31  App.D.C.  154 

Cheneau  v.  Com.  of  Pat..  .,  70  O.G.    924,  1895  CD.  188,  5  App.D.C.  197 

Atwater     80  O.G.      965,  1897   CD.      36,  App.D.C 

Cherney  V.  Clauss ,116  O.G.    597,  1905  CD.  635,  25  App.D.C    15 

Cheney    v.    Clauss 115  O.G.   2137,  1904   CD.   635,  25  App.D.C.      15 

Christensen  v.  Ellis ,940.G.2561,  1901C.D.326,  17App.D.C498 

Clement      v.      Richards      v. 

Meissner      113  O.G.   1145,  1904   CD.   492,  App.D.C. 

Christensen  V.  Noyes ,  90  O.G.    223,  1900  CD.  120,  15  App.D.C    94 

Kelly    V.    Fynn 92   O.G.   1235,  1900  CD.   118,  16  App.D.C.   572 

Watson    V.     Thoma.s 106  O.G.   1777,  1903  CD.   370,  23  App.D.C      65 

Woods    V.    Waddell 106  O.G.   2018,  1903  CD.   391,  App.D.C. 

Russell    V.    Asencio 109   O.G.   1605,  1904   CD.    100,  App.D.C 

Russell    V.    Asencio ,109  O.G.    1607,  1904   CD.   106,  App.D.C. 

Dowry   v.   Spoon 110  O.G.      858,  1904   CD.   173,  App.D.C. 

Matthes    V.    Burt 114   O.G.      766,  1904   CD.   296,  24   App.D.C.   265 

Barber  V.  Wood 132  O.G.   1588,  1908   CD.          ,  App.D.C. 

Christensen  V.  Noyes ,  90  O.G.    227,  1900  CD.  212,  15  App.D.C.    94 

Dowry   v.   Spoon 110  O.G.      858,  1904   CD.    173,  App.D.C 

Dutz    V.    Lewis 110  O.G.   2015,  19(t4   CD.   227.  App.D.C. 

Matthes  v.  Burt ,114   O.G.      766,  1904   CD.   296,  24   App.D.C.   265 

Clauss  V.  Cherney ,116  O.G.    635,  1905  CD.  635,  25  App.D.C.    15 

Cleveland  v.  Wilkin ,123  O.G.  1286,  1906  CD.  703,  27  App.D.C  311 

Cleveland   v.   Wright ,  79  O.G.    866,  1897  CD.  413, 

Clifford  V.  Rose ,  31  App.D.C  195 

Clifford  V.  Newell ,  31  App.D.C.  195 

Clunies    ,123  O.G.  2631,  1906  CD.  740,  28  App.D.C    18 

Cobb  V.  Goebel ,108  O.G.  1591,  1904  CD.  589,  23  App.D.C    75 

Coffee  V.  Guerrant ,  68  O.G.    279,  1894  CD.  384,  3  App.D.C.  497 

Colhoun  V.  Hodgson ,  70  O.G.    276,  1895  CD.  122,  5  App.D.C.    21 

Cross     V.     Phillips 87  O.G.    1399,  1899   CD.   342,  14   App.D.C   228 

Cross     V.     Phillips 87  O.G.   1400,  1899   CD.   342,  14   App.D.C.   228 

Colton    ,104  O.G.    577,  1903  CD.  566,  21  App.D.C.    17 

Colton  101  O.G.  2285,  1902  CD.  436,  21  App.D.C.  17 


24  fATENT  CITATOR  FOR  APPEAL  CASES 

Computing  Scale  Co.  v.  Au- 
tomatic Scale  Co ,119  O.G.  1586,  1905  CD.  704, 

Chapman     120  O.G.  244G,  1896  CD.     79. 

Corner  v.  Kyle ,  1 1 4  O.G.  2092,  1 905  CD.  599, 

Corry  v.  McDermott ,117  O.G.    279,  1905  CD.  668, 

Corry  and  Baker  v.   Trout 

V.   McDermott ,110  O.G.     30G,  1904  CD.   144, 

Couch  V.  Barnett ,110  O.G.  1 43 1 ,  1 904  CD.  650, 

Paul    V.    Hess ,  115  O.G.     252,  1905  CD.   610, 

O'Connell    v.    Schmidt 118  O.G.     589,  1905  CD.   342, 

Rolfe    V.    Hoffman 118  O.G.     834,  1905  CD.  352, 

Crescent  Typewriter  S.  Co.,  133  O.G.    231,  1908  CD. 

American    Optical    Co 133  O.G.   1935,  1908  CD. 

Creveling    ,1 17  O.G.  1 167,  1905  CD.  684, 

Bliss    V.    Creveling ,  112  O.G.     499,  1904  CD.  381, 

Croskey  v.  Atterbury ,  76  O.G.    163,  1896  CD.  437, 

Crockey     v.     Atterbury...,    75   O.G.   1359,  1896  CD.        9, 

Kane   v.    Brill   and   Adams,    84   O.G.   1143,  1898  CD.   146, 

Kasson    v.    Hetherington.,    88  O.G.   1159,  1899  CD.   143, 

Hopfelt    V.    Read 106  O.G.      768,  1903  CD.   319, 

Haskell    v.    Miner    v.    Ball,  109  O.G.   2171,  1904   CD.   131, 

Cross  V.  Phillips ,  87  O.G.  1399,  1899  CD.  342, 

Miehle    v.    Read 89  O.G.     354,  1899  CD.   191, 

Funk       V.       Matteson       v. 

Haines 100  O.G.   1566,  1901  CD.  297, 

Clement     v.      Richards     v. 

Meissner    113  O.G.   1143,  1904  CD.  492, 

Richards  v.  Meissner 114   O.G.   1832,  1904   CD.   595, 

Seeberg-er   v.    Dodge 114   O.G.   2384,  1905  CD.   603, 

Hammond    v.    Basch 115  O.G.      805,  1905  CD.   615, 

Hammond    v.    Basch 115  O.G.     806,  1905  CD.   615, 

Jones    V.    Starr 117   O.G.   1496,  1905  CD.   694, 

Neth       and      Tamplin        v. 

Ohmer    123  O.G.     999,  1906  CD.        1, 

Paries   v.   Lewis ,123  O.G.   2313,  1906  CD.   735, 

Dunbar    v.    Shellinger 128  O.G.  2839,  1907  CD. 

Phillips    V.    Sensenich ,  132  O.G.     677,  1907  CD. 

Cunningham  ,102  O.G.    824,  1903  CD.  524, 

Cunningham    101  O.G.   2288,  1902  CD.  442, 

Cushman  v.  Lines ,  78  O.G.  205 1 ,  1 897  CD.  346, 

Cushman   v.   Lines 77  O.G.      153,  1896  CD.      62. 

Cushman  v.  Lines ,    79  O.G.     335,  1897  CD.   346, 

Tracy   et  al.   v.   Leslie 87  O.G.     893,  1899  CD.   306, 

Rosell    V.    Allen 92   O.G.   1038,  1900  CD.   333, 

Schiipphau-g   v.   Stevens 95  O.G.   1454,  1901   CD.   365, 

Cutler  V.  Leonard ,136  O.G.    438,  1908  CD. 

Cutler  V.  Hall ,135  O.G.    449, 

Mason    v.    Hepburn 81   O.G.     147, 

Thompson  v.  Weston ,    99  O.G.      864. 

Horine    v.    Wende 129  O.G.  2858, 

Darnell  v.  Grant ,  92  O.G.    557,  1900  CD.  329, 

Dashiell  v.  Tasker ,  1 03  O.G.  2 1 74,  1 903  CD.  55 1 , 

Davenport ,1 10  O.G.  2017,  1904  CD.  653, 

Davis  V.  Garrett ,  1 23  O.G.  1 99 1 ,  1 906  CD.  724, 

Davis   V.   Garrett 112  O.G.   1211,  1904  CD.  578, 

U.  S.  Standard  Voting  Ma- 
chine   Co ,130  O.G.   1486,  1907  CD. 

Davis  V.  Horton ,136  O.G.  1768,  1908  CD. 

DeFerranti  v.  Lyndmark.  .,134  O.G.    515,  1908  CD. 

DeFerranti  V.  Lindmark.  .,  187  O.G.      731,  1908  CD. 

DeFerranti  v.  Lindmark.  .,  137  O.G.     733,  1908  CD. 

DeFerranti  v.  Lindmark.  .,  137  O.G.     732,  1908  CD. 


26  App.D.C  238 

App.D.C. 

24  App.D.C  291 

25  App.D.C  305 

25  App. 

23  App 

24  App. 

27  App. 

26  App, 

30  App 

App. 

25  App, 

App. 

9  App. 

9  App. 
App. 
App. 
App. 
App. 

14  App, 

18   App. 

20  App.D.C.  285 

App.D.C. 
24   App.D.C.   305 
24   App.D.C.   476 
24   App.D.C.   469 
24   App.D.C.   469 

26  App.D.C.      64 

30  App. 

28  App. 

29  App. 

31  App. 

21  App 

21    App. 

10  App 

10  App. 
10  App. 
14   App. 

16  App. 

17  App. 

31  App 


D.C   305 

.D.C  446 

D.C  462 
D.C.  77 
D.C.   336 

.D.C  324 

D.C 

.D.C  530 

D.C 

.D.C  207 

D.C   207 

D.C. 

D.C. 

D.C 

D.C. 

.D.C  228 

D.C.   128 


D.C.  478 

D.C.  1 

D.C.  129 

D.C  159 


.D.C 

D.C 


29 

29 


.D.C  156 

D.C  156 
D.C.  156 
D.C  126 
D.C.  559 
D.C.  548 

.D.C  297 


13  App.D.C.  86 
19  App.D.C.  373 
29  App.D.C  415 

16  App.D.C  589 
21  App.D.C.  64 
23  App.D.C.  370 
28  App.D.C.   9 


28  App.D.C. 


9 


App.D.C. 

31  App.D.C.  601 
30  App.D.C.  417 

30  App.D.C.  417 
30  App.D.C.  417 
30  App.D.C.  417 


PATENT  CITATOR  FOR  APPEAL  CASES  25 

DeFerranti  v.  Lindemark.  .,137  O.G.    731, 

Allen,  Com.  of  Pat.,  ex 
rcl.,    Lowry    and    Plant 

Comp.  Co IIG  O.G.  2253,  26  App.D.C.     68 

Denton  v.  Com.  of  Pat....,  83  O.G.  1347,  1899  CD.  483,  12  App.D.C.  504 

Holt   V.   Ing-prsoll ,    84  O.G.   1873,  1808   CD.          ,  App.D.C. 

L;uioix     13;{   O.G.    2183,  1908   CD.           ,  .30   App.D.C.    299 

DeWallace  v.  Scott ,  88  O.G.  1 704,  1 899  CD.  416,  15  App.D.C  1 57 

Christensen   v.   Ellis ,    94  O.G.  2.563,  1901   CD.   326,  17   App.D.CSi  498 

Garrels  et  al.   v.   Freeman,  103  O.G.   1684,  1903  CD.     56,  21   App.D.C-  207 

Dickey  v.  Fleming ,  83  O.G.  1348,  1898  CD.  487,  12  App.D.C  509 

Dilg   ,1180.G.  1067,  1905C.D.  620,  25  App.D.C      9 

Dilg    112   O.G.      953,  1904   CD.   401,  25   App.D.C.        9 

Dilg    ,113   O.G.      547,  1904   CD.   463,  25   App.D.C        9 

Dodge  V.  Fowler 82  O.G.    598,  1898  CD.  320,  1 1  App.D.C.  592 

Fowler  V.   Dodge ,    82  O.G.   1687,  1898   CD.      28,  14   App.D.C.   477 

Fowler  v.   Dodge 85  O.G.   1584,  1808  CD.   257,  14  App.D.C.  477 

Seeberger   v.    Dodge 113  O.G.   1417,  1904  CD.  505,  24  App.D.C  476 

Seeberger   v.    Dodge 114  O.G.   2384,  1905  CD.          ,  24  App.D.C.  476 

Draper  v.  Seymour,  Com.  of 

Pat 79  O.G.    864,  1897  CD.  407,  10  App.D.C.  545 

Smith    V.     Duell,     Com.     of 

Pat 87  O.G.     894,  1899  CD.  313,  14  App.D.C   181 

Lowry    v.    Duell,    Com.    of 

Pat 88  O.G.     718,  1899  CD.  410,  14  App.D.C.  473 

Drawbaugh  66  O.G.  1451,  1894  CD.  192,  2  App.D.C  404 

Drawbaugh    57  O.G.      693,  1801   CD.    182,  2   App.D.C.  404 

Drawbaugh    64   O.G.      155,  1893  CD.      85,  3  App.D.C   236 

Drawbaugh    ,  67  O.G.    929,  1894  CD.  297,  3  App.D.C.  236 

Drawbaugh     v.      Seymour, 

Com.  of  Pat ,  77  O.G.    313,  1896C.D.527,  9App.D.C219 

Anderson      and      Dyer      v. 

Lowry    89   O.G.   1862,  1899  CD.   2.30,  App.D.C. 

Tournier    ,108  O.G.      798,  1904   CD.      36,  17   App.D.C.   481 

Star     Distillery     Company,  119  O.G.     964,  1905  CD.  493,  App.D.C. 

Droop ,1330.G.    517,  1908CD.        ,  30  App.D.C  334 

Doyle  V.  McRoberts ,  79  O.G.  1029,  1897  CD.  413,  29  App.D.C  129 

Doyle   V.   McRoberts ,    73   O.G.      139,  1895  CD.      SO,  10  App.D.C.   445 

Painter    v.    Hall 83  O.G.   1S(I6,  ISOS  CD.      01,  App.D.C. 

Esty   V.  Newton 86  O.G.     Sno.  ISOO  CD.   284,  14   App.D.C.     50 

Huber   v.   Aiken ,    88  O.G.    ir.iiC.  ]si)i»  CD.    166,  App.D.C. 

Newton    v.   Woodward 93  O.G.   2320,  looo   CD.   406,  17  App.D.C.      34 

Schiipphaus   v.   Stevens...,    95  O.G.   1454,  1901   CD.   365,  17  App.D.C   548 

Luger    V.    Browning 104   O.G.    1124,  1904   CD.   593,  21   App.D.C   201 

Duff  V.  Lalshaw ,136  O.G.    658,  1908  CD.        ,  31  App.D.C.  235 

Dunbar  V.  Schellenger ,128  O.G.  2837,  1907  CD.        ,  29  App.D.C.  129 

Dunbar  v.  Shellinger 113  O.G.   2213,  1904   CD.   552,  29  App.D.C.   129 

Dunbar  v.  Shellinger 121   O.G.     687,  1904  CD.  552,  App.D.C. 

Duncan,  Pri chard  &  Macau- 
ley    ,1260.G.2592,  1908CD.        ,  28  App.D.C.  457 

Durham  v.  Seymour,  Com. 

of    Pat ,710.G.    601,  1895C.D.307,  6  App.D.C.    78 

Smith    V.     Duell,    Com.     of 

Pat 87  O.G.      895,  1899   CD.   313,  14   App.D.C.   181 

Hummel    v.    Tingley 90  O.G.      060,  1900  CD.      22,  App.D.C. 

McNeil    ,  100  O.G.   2178,  1902  CD.   563,  2   App.D.C.   294 

Beck   105  O.G.    1781,  1903  CD.   277,  App.D.C. 

Robin  V.  Muller  and  Bon- 
net      113  O.G.   2506,  1004   CD.   571,  App.D.C 

Garrett    122  O.G.   1048,  1906  CD.          ,  27  App.D.C.     19 


26  PATENT  CITATOR  FOR  APPEAL  CASES 

Durkee   Jr.   v.   Winquist   et 

al ,136  0.G.    229,    1908  CD.        ,   31  App.D.C.  248 

Duryea  &  White  v.  Rice,  Jr.,126  O.G.  1357,    1906  CD.        ,   28  App.D.C  423 

Spitteler   and    Krische 134   O.G.    1302,  1008   CD.  31   Ann  D  C    '>71 

Maroni    v.    Shoemaker 131  O.G.   1940,  1907  CD.  ,  App!d!c   " 

Eastman  V.  Houston ,  95  O.G.  2064,    1901CD.386,    18App.D.C135 

Eastman   v.    Houston 87  O.G.      113,  1899  CD.  ,  App.D.C 

Eastman   v.    Houston 95  O.G.  2064,  1901   O.G.   386,  18  App.D.C   135 

Pupin    V.    Hutin    and    Le- 

blanc     V.     Stone .  .  .  .,  100  O.G.     934.  1902  CD.  269,  App.D.C 

Harris    v.    Stern   and    Lotz,  105  O.G.      260,  1903  CD.   207,  22  App.D.C   164 

Brooks   V.   Hillard 106  O.G.   1240,  1903  CD.  335,  App.D.C 

Eclipse  Bicycle  Co.  v.  Far- 
row     ,93  O.G.  1312,    1900  CD.  389,   23  App.D.C.  411 

Edison   133  O.G.  1190,    1908  CD.        ,     2  App.D.C.    10 

Edna  Smelting  Co.  v.  Mfg. 
Co ,1350.G.    664,    1908C.D.        ,  30  App.D.C.  487 

Ehret  V.  Star  Brew.  Co....,  136  O.G.  1533,    1908  CD.        ,   31  App.D.C  507 

Ehret  v.  Star  Brewing  Co.,  136  O.G.  1533, 

In  re  Indian  Portland  Ce- 
ment Co 134  O.G.     518.  1908  CD.  ,        30  App.D.C.  468 

Einstein  V.  Sawhill ,680.G.1918,    1893CD.677,     2  App.D.C.    10 

Sherwood   v.    Horton,    Cato 

&   Company 84  O.G.  2018,  1898  CD.   629,  App.D.C 

Sherwood   v.   Horton,   Cato 

&    Company 84  O.G.   2020,  1898  CD.  629,  App.D.C. 

Esty  V.  Newton ,  86  O.G.    799,    1899  CD.  284,    14  App.D.C    50 

Thomson    v.    Weston 94  O.G.  986,  1901   CD.      24,  19  App.D.C.  373 

Tyler   v.    St.    Amand 94  O.G.  1970,  1901   CD.   301,  17   App.D.C.  464 

Howard   v.    Hey ,    95  O.G.  1648,  1901   CD.   375,  18  App.D.C.  142 

Oliver  v.   Felbel 100  O.G.  2176,  1902   CD.   315,  20  App.D.C.  255 

Oliver  v.    Pelbel 100  O.G.  2384,  1902  CD.   565,  20  App.D.C.  255 

Brown   v.   Blood ,105  O.G.  977,  1903  CD.   224,  22   App.D.C  216 

Brooks   V.    Hillard ,106  O.G.  1241,  1903  CD.   335,  App.D.C 

Thomas    v.    Trissel ,  107  O.G.  267,  1903  CD.  408,  App.D.C. 

Winter    v.     Slick    v.    Voll- 

kommer     107  O.G.  1660,  1903  CD.  477,  App.D.C. 

Smith    V.    Brooks ,112  O.G.  955,  1904  CD.   223,  24   App.D.C.  75 

Matthes  v.  Burt 114  O.G.  766,  1904   CD.   296,  24   App.D.C.  265 

Funk    et    al.    v.    Whitely .  .,  117  O.G.  280,  1905   CD.      34,  25  App.D.C  313 

Bourn    v.    Hill,   Jr ,123  O.G.  1285,  1906  CD.   699,  21   App.D.C.  291 

Ex  parte   Union   Carbide  f  135  O.G.    450,  29  App.D.C.  1 18 

Company |  135  O.G.    451, 

In    re    Hopkins 128  O.G.     980,  29  App.D.C.   118 

Crescent  Typewriting-  Sup- 
ply    Co 133  O.G.        81,  30  App.D.C   324 

Kentucky  Dist.  &  W.  Co. 
v.  Old  Lex.  Club  Dist. 
Co ,138  O.G.      222.  31   App.D.C.   223 

Ex  parte  Hartley ,136  O.G.  1767, 

Nielson   v.    Bradshaw 91   O.G.      644,  16  App.D.C.     92 

Ex  parte  U.  S.  Sanitary  Mfg. 

Co ,137  O.G.    227, 

Cahn,    Belt    &    Co 122   O.G.      354.  27  App.D.C   173 

Ex  parte  Reiss ,137  O.G.  1712, 

Allen,    Com.    of   Pat.,    v.    U. 

S.  Lowry  &  Plant.  Comp. 

Co 110  O.G.   2253,  26  App.D.C.        8 

Men   V.   Midg-ley 136  O.G.   15.34.  31  App.D.C.   534 

Ex  parte  Curtis ,  1 38  O.G.    767, 

Blackford  v.  Wilder 127  O.G.  1255,  28  App.D.C.  535 


PATENT  CITATOR  FOR  APPEAL  CASES 


27 


Ex  parte  C.  S.  Sisson  Co. 

in    re    Am.    Cir.    Loom    Co 

Faber  

Fay  V.  Duell,  Com.  of  Pat, 


Ex    parte    Kinney. 
Millett    V.    Heed. 


Fefel  V.  Stocker. 


Thomson    v.    Weston 

Tyler   v.    St.    Amand 

Howard   v.    Hey 

Brooks    V.    Hillard 

Winter    v.    Slick    v.    Voll 

kommer     

Ocumpaugh    v.    Norton... 

Paul    V.    Hess 

Gilman    v.    Brown    v.    Hin 

son    

Fordyce    v.    Stoetzel 


Feinberg  v.  Cowan, 
Fenner  v.  Blake.  . , 


Flather  v.  Weber. 


Weber   v.    Flather 

Blackman    v.    Alexander.  . 

Flora  V.  Powrie 

Orcutt     V.     McDonald,     Jr 
and    McDonald 


Forg 

Foster  v.  Antisdel. 


Prindle 


Triifant 

Brown 
Garrels  et  al.   v.   Freeman 

Luger    V.    Browning 

Blood   V.   Brown 

Brown   V.   Blood 

Herman   v.   Fullman 

Herman  v.   Fullman 

Trufant       v.       Prindle       v 

Brown    

Prindle    v.    Brown 

Bauer    v.    Crone 

Dunbar  v.  Shellinger .  .  .  . 
Dunbar  v.  Shellinger .  .  .  . 
Howard    v.    Bowes 


Fowler  v.  Boyce 

Fowler  v.  Boyce 

Fowler   V.    Boyce 

Fowler  v.  Dodge 

Rosell    V.    Allen 

Fowler  v.  Dodge.... 
Fowler  v.  Dodge.... 
Fowler    v.    Dodge.... 

Fowler  v.  Dyson 

Fowler  v.  McBerty 

Frasch    

Ex   parte   Frasch 

Ex   parte   Frasch 

Ex   parte   Frasch 

Ex   parte   Frasch 

Phillips  V.   Sensenich. 

Frasch    


138  O.G.    528, 

127  O.G.      .•{•):5, 

136  O.G.    229, 
90  O.G.  1157, 

118  O.G.   22.->4, 

128  O.G.   2836, 

94  O.G.    433, 

94  O.G.      087, 

94  O.G.   197(1. 

9.5  O.G.   1648, 

106  O.G.   1241. 

107  O.G.  1660, 
110  O.G.  1724, 
115  O.G.      252, 

122  O.G.  733, 
130  O.G.   2373, 

128  O.G.  889, 
134  O.G.  2244, 
104  O.G.  312, 

103  O.G.  223. 
113  O.G.   1708, 

109  O.G.  2443, 

123  O.G.   1288, 

66  O.G.    515, 
88  O.G.  1527, 


28  App.D.C.   450 

31  App.D.C.  531 
15  App.D.C.  515 

App.D.C. 

18  App.D.C.    186 

17  App.D.C.  317 

19  App.D.C.   373 

17  App.D.C.   464 

18  App.D.C.   142 
App.D.C. 

App.D.C. 
24   App.D.C.  296 
24   App.D.C.  462 

26  App.D.C.  409 
App.D.C. 

29  App.D.C.    80 

20  App.D.C.  507 

21  App.D.C.  179 

App.D.C. 
26  App.D.C.   541 

1904  CD.  636,  23  App.D.C.  195 


1908  CD. 

1900  CD.  232, 

1905  CD.  441. 
1907   CD. 

1901  CD.  269, 

1901  CD.  24, 
1901  CD.  301, 
1901  CD.  375, 
1903  CD.   335, 

1903  CD.   477, 

1904  CD.   207, 

1905  CD.   610, 

1906  CD. 

1907  CD. 

1907  CD. 

1908  CD. 
1903  CD.  561, 

1903  CD.  70, 
1903   CD.   521, 


1906  CD.   705, 

1894  CD.  138, 
1899  CD.  413, 


101 

O.G. 

1608, 

1902 

CD. 

397, 

103 

0.(}. 

1684, 

1903 

CD. 

56, 

104 

O.G. 

1124, 

1904 

CD. 

593, 

105 

().(i. 

498, 

1903 

CI). 

224, 

105 

o.a. 

977, 

1903 

CD. 

224, 

107 

O.G. 

1097, 

1903 

CD. 

452, 

109 

O.G. 

1888, 

1904 

CD. 

625, 

111 

O.G. 

1036, 

1904 

CD. 

282, 

112 

0.(J. 

958, 

1904 

CD. 

680, 

118 

O.CJ. 

1072, 

1905 

CD. 

378, 

121 

0.(J. 

2664, 

1906 

C.D. 

147, 

128 

().(?. 

2839. 

1907 

C.D. 

^ 

137 

O.G. 

733, 

1908 

C.D. 

27  App.D.C.  228 

2  App.D.C    58 
14  App.D.C.  552 

App.D.C 

21   App.D.C.  207 

21  App.D.C.  201 

22  App.D.C.  216 

22  App.D.C.  216 

23  App.D.C.  259 

23  App.D.C.  259 

24  App.D.C.  114 
24  App.D.C.  114 
26  App.D.C.  352 
29  App.D.C.  129 
29  App.D.C.  129 
31   App.D.C.  619 


121  O.G.  1014,    1906  CD.  580,   27  App.D.C.    48 

27  App.D.C.    55 


122  O.G.  1726, 

118  O.G.   2534, 

87  O.G.    895, 

92  O.G.  1038, 

78  O.G.  2045, 

82  O.G.  1687. 

85  O.G.  1584, 

121  O.G.  1015, 

121  O.G.  1015, 
100  O.G.  1977, 

91  O.G.  459, 

109  O.G.  1338, 

98  O.G.  1967, 

109  O.G.  554, 

1.34  O.G.  1808, 

122  O.G.  1043, 


1906  C.D.  659, 

1905  C.D.   446, 

1899  C.D.  316, 

1900  C.D.   333, 

1897  C.D.        8, 

1898  C.D.      28, 
1898   C.D.   259, 

1906  C.D.  583, 

1906  C.D.  585, 
1902  C.D.  560, 

1900  C.D.  50, 

1904  C.D.  104, 

1902  C.D.  65, 

1904  C.D.  104, 
1908  C.D. 


27   App.D.C.      55 

14  App.D.C  477 

16  App.D.C.  559 
14  App.D.C.  477 
14  App.D.C.  477 
14   App.D.C.   477 

27  App.D.C  52 
27  App.D.C.  41 
20  App.D.C.  301 

20  App.D.C.  298 
27  App.D.C.  25 
20  App.D.C.  298 
27  App.D.C.  25 
31  App.D.C.  159 


1906  CD.  648,  27  App.D.C  25 


28  PATENT  CITATOR  FOR  APPEAL,  CASES 

Freeman    ,109  O.G.  1339,  1904  CD.  619, 

Freeman      ,104  O.G.   1396,  1903  CD.   172. 

Goldsmith      110  O.G.      310,  1904   CD.   1-52, 

Mygatt     117  O.G.      .599,  1905  CD.   24.3, 

Myg-att     121   O.G.   1677,  1905  CD.   596, 

French  v.  Halcomb ,120  O.G.  1824,  1906  CD.  547, 

French    v.    Halcomb 110  O.G.   1727,  1904  CD.   218, 

Funk  V.  Haines ,100  O.G.  1766,  1902  CD.  559, 

Funk       V.       Matte.son       v. 

Haines    100  O.G.   1764,  1902  CD.   553, 

Funk       V.       Matteson       v. 

Haines    100  O.G.   1563,  1901   CD.   297, 

Funk  V.  Matteson  v.  Haines,100  O.G.  1764,  1902  CD.  553, 

Pihl   V.   Mersman ,106  O.G.    1776,  1903  CD.   367, 

Watson    V.    Thomas 106  O.G.   1778,  1903  CD.   370, 

Gilnian  v.  Brown  and  Hin- 

son    122  O.G.     733,  1906  CD.   634, 

Funk  V.  Whitely ,117  O.G.    280,  1905  CD.  570, 

Furman  v.  Dean ,114  O.G.  1552,  1905  CD.  582, 

Furman   v.    Dean Ill  O.G.   1366,  1904  CD.   305, 

Pohle    V.    McKnight 119  O.G.   2521,  1905  CD. 

Fordyce    v.    Stoetzel 130  O.G.   2372,  1907  CD. 

Gaines  &  Co.  v.  Carlton  Co.,  123  O.G.  1994,  1906  CD.  73 

Buchanan -Anderson- 
Nelson  Co.  V.  Breen  and 

Kennedy    ,124   O.G.     322,  1906  CD.   750, 

Gaines  &  Co.  v,  Knecht  & 

Son    123  O.G.    657,  1906  CD.  690, 

W.  A.  Gaines  &  Co.  v.  Carl- 
ton Importation  Com- 
pany     123  O.G.   1994,  1906  CD.     35, 

Gallagher  v.  Hastings ,  1 03  O.G.  1 1 65,  1 903,C.D.  53 1 , 

Garrels  et  al.   v.   Freeman,  103  O.G.   1684,  1903  CD.     56, 

Gallagher    v.    Hastings.  ..,  103  O.G.      425,  1903  CD.      83, 

Granger  v.    Richardson 110  O.G.   1726,  1904  CD.   211, 

Jackson   v.    Summerfleld.  .,  112   O.G.   1213,  1904   CD.   403, 

French    v.    Halcomb 115  O.G.      508.  1905  CD.      81, 

Corry  et  al.  v.  McDermott,  117  O.G.  280,  1905  CD.  668, 
Orcutt    V.     McDonald,     Jr., 

and    McDonald 118  O.G.     592,  1905  CD.  348, 

Alexander  v.  Blackman .  .,  121  O.G.  1981,  1906  CD.  602, 
Orcutt    V.     McDonald,     Jr., 

and    McDonald ,123  O.G.   1288,  1906  CD.   705, 

Gallagher  V.  Hien 114  O.G.    545,  1905  CD.  569, 

Gallagher,  Jr.,  v.  Hien  ....,115  O.G.  1 330,  1 905  CD.  624, 

Seeberger  v.   Russel 117  O.G.   2087,  1905  CD.   28.3, 

Bauer    v.    Crone ,118  O.G.   1072,  1905  CD.   378, 

Rolfe    V.    Hoffman ,121   O.G.   1352,  1905  CD.   352, 

Seeberger  v.   Russel ,121   O.G.   2329,  1905  CD.   28.3, 

Andrew.s     v.     Nilson 123  O.G.   1668,  1906  CD.   717, 

Dunbar    v.    Shellenger 128  O.G.  2840,  1907  CD. 

Garrels  v.  Freeman ,103  O.G.  1683,  1903  CD.  542, 

Freeman    v.     Garrels     and 

Kimball     102  O.G.   1777,  1903  CD.     56, 

Kletzker     and     Gorsel     v. 

Dodson     109  O.G.    1337,  1904   CD.    100, 

Podlesak   and   Podlesak   v. 

Mclnnernev    118  O.G.      836,  1905  CD.   358, 

French    v.    Halcomb 120  O.G.   1826,  1906  CD.   547, 

Podle.sak    and   Podlesak   v. 

Mclnnernev    ,120  O.G.   2129,  1906  CD.   558, 

Hamm  V.    Black 132  O.G.      842,  1907  CD. 

Garrett    ,122  O.G.  1047,  1906  CD.  645, 


23  App. 

23   App. 

App. 

26  App. 

26  App. 

26  App, 

26  App. 


D.C  226 

D.C   226 
D.C. 

D.C.   366 
D.C    366 

.D.C  307 

D.C   307 


20  App.D.C  293 


20  App. 
20   App. 

20  App 

App. 

23  App. 

26   App. 

25  App 

24  App 

24  App. 
App. 
App. 


D.C  285 
D.C.   285 

.D.C  285 

D.C. 
D.C.      65 

D.C.   409 

.D.C  313 
.D.C  277 

D.C  277 

D.C. 

D.C. 


1,  27  App.D.C  571 


27   App.D.C.   573 

27  App.D.C.  530 

27  App.D.C.   571 

21  App.D.C.    88 

21  App.D.C.  207 
21   App.D.C.      88 

App.D.C. 

App.D.C. 

26  App.D.C.   307 

25  App.D.C.   305 

27  App.D.C.   228 

26  App.D.C.   541 

27  App.D.C.  228 

25  App.D.C    77 

25  App.D.C.    88 

26  App.D.C.  .344 
26  App.D.C.  352 
26  App.D.C.   336 

26  App.D.C.   344 

27  App.D.C.  451 
29   App.D.C.    129 

21  App.D.C  207 

App.D.C 

App.D.C 

26  App.D.C.  399 
26  App.D.C.   307 

26  App.D.C.   399 
App.D.C. 

27  App.D.C    19 


PATENT  CITATOR  FOR  APPEAL.  CASES  29 

Gedge  V.  Cromwell ,980.G.1486,  1902C.D.514,  19  App.D.C.  192 

Weber   v.    Flather lOH  O.G.      '2-27,  1!I08  CD.      70,  App.D.C. 

Hastings    v.    Gallagher lOS  O.G.      428,  VMKi  CD.      83,  'Jl   App.D.C.      88 

Garrel.s  et  al.   v.    Freeman,  KCi  O.G.   1684,  1!)(»3  CD.     .50,  21   App.D.C.   207 

Granger  v.    Richardson.  ..,  110  O.G.    1726,  1004   CD.  211,  App.D.C. 

Jackson   v.    Summerfleld.  .,  112  O.G.   1218,  1904  CD.   402,  App.D.C. 
Orcutt     V.     McDonald,     Jr., 

and    McDonald 118  O.G.     592,  190r>  CD.  348.  27  App.D.C.   228 

Larkin     v.     Richardson 122  O.G.   2391,  1906  CD.  209,  28  App.D.C.  471 

Orcutt     V.     McDonald,     Jr., 

and     McDonald ,  12.S   O.G.    1288.  1906  CD.   70.5,  27  App.D.C.   228 

Gibbons  v.  Peller ,127  O.G.  3643,  1907  C.D.        ,  28  App.D.C.  530 

Gibbons    v.    Peller 124   O.G.      624,  190()  C.D.   314.  28  App.D.C.   530 

Giles  Remedy  Co.  v.  Giles,  120  O.G.  1826,  1906  C.D.  552,  26  App.D.C.  382 

Bluthenthal  and  Bickart  v. 
Bigbie  Brothers  &  Com- 
pany     130  O.G.   2069,  1907  C.D.          ,  30   App.D.C.    118 

Gilman  &  Brown  V.  Hinson,122  O.G.    731,  1906C.D.634,  26  App.D.C.  409 

Wickers     and     Furlong    v. 

McKee    129  O.G.      872,  1907   C.D.          ,  29  App.D.C.        4 

Glenn  V.  Adams ,  83  O.G.    158,  1898  C.D.  407,  12  App.D.C.  175 

Howard   v.    Hey 95  O.G.   1648,  1901   C.D.   375,  18  App.D.C.   142 

Glidden  V.  Noble ,  71  O.G.    141,  1895  C.D.  273,  5  App.D.C.  480 

Fowler    v.    Dodge S2  O.G.    1689,  1898  C.D.      28,  14   App.D.C.   477 

Swihart    v.    Mauldin ,    99  O.G.      666,  1902   C.D.   137,  19   App.D.C.   570 

Traver    v.    Brown ,    86  O.G.   1326,  1899  C.D.  296,  14  App.D.C.     34 

Gilman  and  Brown  v.  Hin- 

son    ,122  O.G.     733,  1906  C.D.  634,  26  App.D.C.  409 

Goolman  V.  Hobart ,135  O.G.  1123,  1908C.D.        ,  31  App.D.C.  285 

Gordon  V.  Wentworth ,135  O.G.  1 125,  1908  C.D.        ,  31  App.D.C.  150 

Gordon    v.    Wentworth 120  O.G.   1165,  1906  C.D.     52,  App.D.C. 

/-  „             r-     A  (  136  O.G.    228, 

Graves  V.  Gunder |  136  O.G.    227, 

standard     Underground 

Cable    Co 123  O.G.     656,  27  App.D.C.   320 

Greenwood  V.  Dover ,109  O.G.  2172,  1904  C.D.  630,  23  App.D.C.  251 

Barrett     v.     Harter ,112  O.G.      732,  1904   C.D.   392,  24   App.D.C.   300 

Robinson    v.     Seelinger 114   O.G.      263,  1904   C.D.          ,  25  App.D.C.   237 

Harter    v.     Barrett 114   O.G.      976,  1904   C.D.   392,  24   App.D.C.   300 

French    v.    Halcomb 115  O.G.     508,  1905  C.D.  218,  26  App.D.C.   307 

Griggin  v.  Swenson ,  89  O.G.    919,  1899  C.D.  440,  15  App.D.C.  135 

Griffin    v.    Swenson 91   O.G.      819,  1900  C.D.          ,  15  App.D.C.   135 

Christensen     v.     Ellis 94  O.G.   2563,  1901   C.D.   326,  17  App.D.C.   498 

Woods    V.    Poor 130  O.G.   1314,  1907  C.D.          ,  29  App.D.C   397 

Griswold  v.  Seymour,  Com. 

of    Pat ,  78  O.G.    482,  1897  C.D.  248,  9  App.D.C.  496 

Smith     V.     Duell,     Com.     of 

Pat ,    87  O.G.      894,  1899  C.D.   313,  14   App.D.C.   181 

GuenifFit,  Benoit  &  Nicault 

V.  Wictorsohn ,134  O.G.    779,  1908  C.D.        ,  30  App.D.C.  432 

Gueniffet,  Benoit  and  Ni- 
cault   V.    Wictorsohn.  ..,  117  O.G.    1492,  1904   CD.   112,  30   App.D.C.   432 

Guilbert  V.  Kellinger ,  84  O.G.    313,  1898C.D.522,  13  App.D.C.  107 

Guilbert  v.   Killinger 82  O.G.    1561,  1898  C.D.      26,  13  App.D.C   107 

Estey    V.     Newton ,    S6  O.G.      8()0,  1899  C.D.   284,  14   App.D.C.      50 

Traver    v.    Brown 86  O.G.   1326,  1899  C.D.   296,  14  App.D.C.      34 

Gilman  and  Brown  v.  Hin- 

son    ,122   O.G.      733,  1906  C.D.   6.34,  26  App.D.C.  409 

Lewis      and      Williams      v. 

Cronemeyer    130   O.G.      302,  1907  C.D.          ,  29   App.D.C.    174 

Hall  &  Ruckel  V.  Ingram.  .,126  O.G.    759,  1907  C.D.        ,  28  App.D.C.  454 


30  PATENT  CITATOR  FOR  APPEAL  CASES 

Hall's  Safe  Co.  v.  H.  H.  M. 

Co ,135  O.G.  1804,  1908  CD. 

Kallwood  V.  Lalor ,103  O.G.  2173,  1903  CD.  549, 

Hallwood       V.       Lalor       v. 

Bockhoff    103   O.G.      887,  1903   CD.    109, 

Norden    v.    Spaulding 114  O.G.   1829,  1904   CD.  439, 

Hammond  V.  Basch ,115  0.0.    804,  1905  CD.  615, 

Fowler   v.    Boyce ,122  O.G.    1726,  1906  CD.   659, 

O'Connell    v.     Schmidt 122  O.G.   2066,  1906  CD.   662, 

Lowrie  v.  Taylor  and  Tay- 123  O.G.   1666,  1906  CD.   722, 

lor     123  O.G.   2314,  1906  CD.   735, 

Parkes    v.    Lewi.s , 

Dunbar    v.    Schellenger .  .  .,  128  O.G.   2839,  1907  CD. 

Howell,  Jr.,  v.   Hess ,132  O.G.   1075,  1907  CD. 

Hansen  V.  Dean ,129  O.G.    483,  1907  CD. 

Harris  v.  Stern  &  Lotz 1 05  O.G.    746,  1 903  CD.  6 1 2, 

Harris    v.    Stern   and   Lotz,  101   O.G.   1132,  1902  CD.   386, 

Harris   v.    Stern   and   Lotz,  1()5  0,G.      259,  1903  CD.   207, 

Paul    V.    Hess ,  113  O.G.     848,  1904  CD.   478, 

Harter  v.  Barrett ,114  O.G.    975,  1905  CD.  578, 

Hawley    ,121  O.G.    691,  1906  D.C  576, 

Hayes    ,123  O.G.  1000,  1906  CD.  697, 

Henry  v.  Doble ,  1 22  O.G.  1 398,  1 906  CD.  654, 

Herbst  Importing  Co ,134  O.G.  1565,  1908  CD. 

Herman  v.  Pullman ,109  O.G.  1888,  1904  CD.  625, 

MacMulkin   v.    Bollee 130  O.G.   1691,  1907  CD. 

Heroult   ,127  O.G.  3217,  1907  CD. 

Heroult  V.  Com.  of  Pat..  ..,  70O.G.    784,  1895CD.177, 

Hien  V.  Pungs ,  78  O.G.    484,  1897  CD.  253, 

Hien    v.    Pungs 77  O.G.    1600,  1896  CD.   649, 

Hien    v.    Pungs 68  O.G.      657,  1894   CD.      92, 

Atwater     80  O.G.     965.  1897  CD.     36, 

Atwater     80  O.G.      966,  1897  CD.      36, 

Bechman    v.    Wood 81   O.G.   2087,  1897  CD.   188, 

Hien  v.  Buhoup ,  81  O.G.  2088,  1897  CD.  772, 

Hein   V.   Buhoup 81   O.G.   2988,  1897  CD.   190, 

Howard    v.    Hey 95  O.G.   1648,  1901   CD.   375, 

Slaughter   v.    Halle ,    09  O.G.  2774,  1902  CD.   210, 

Donnelly    v.    Wvman 103  O.G.     658,  1903  CD.     95, 

Thomas    v.    Trissel 107  O.G.      267,  1903   CD.   408, 

Brooks    V.     Smith 110  O.G.   2014,  1904  CD.   223, 

Hill    ,121  O.G.    340,  1906  CD.  572, 

Hill  V.  Hodge ,  83  O.G.  1211,  1899  CD.  480, 

Painter     v.     Hall 83  O.G.   1806,  1898  CD.     91, 

Ruete   V.   El  well 87   O.G.   2122,  1899   CD.   379, 

Rosell    V.    Allen 92  O.G.   1088,  1900  CD.   333, 

Pchiipphaus   v.   Stevens 95  O.G.   1454,  1901   CD.  365, 

Carey  v.  The  New  Home 
Sewing  Machine  Com- 
pany          97  O.G.    1172,  1901   CD.   165, 

Meigs,    Hughes    and    Stout 

V.    Gerdom ,116  O.G.   1184,  1905  CD.   188, 

Gueniffet,    Benoit    and    Ni- 

cault    V.    Wictorsohn.  .  .,  1.34  O.G.     256,  1908  CD. 

Hill  V.  Parmelee ,  78  O.G.    170,  1897  CD.  214, 

Hillard  v.  Brooks ,111  O.G.    302,  1904  CD.  658, 


31  App.D.C.  498 
21  App.D.C    61 

21  App.D.C      61 
24   App.D.C.   286 

24  App.D.C  469 

27  App.D.C.      48 

27  App.D.C.      77 

27  App.D.C.   522 

28  App.D.C.        1 

29  App.D.C.   129 

30  App.D.C.   194 

29  App.D.C  112 

22  App, 

22  App. 
22  App. 
24    App. 

24  App 

26  App 

27  App 


.D.C  164 

D.C.  164 
D.C  164 
D.C.   462 

.D.C  300 
.D.C  324 
.D.C  393 


27  App.D.C    33 
30  App.D.C.  297 


23  App.D.C  259 

30   App.D.C.    112 

5  App.D.C 

,    90 

29  App.D.C. 

.    42 

9  App.D.C  492 

9  App.D.C.   492 
9   App.D.C.   492 
App.D.C. 
App.D.C. 
15   App.D.C   484 

1 1  App.D.C 

11   App.D.C 
18   App.D.C. 
21   App.D.C 
21   App.D.C. 

App.D.C. 

App.D.C. 

.293 

293 

142 

19 

81 

26  App.D.C 

.318 

12  App.D.C 

App.D.C 

15  App.D.C. 

16  App.D.C. 

17  App.D.C. 

.528 

21 
559 
548 

App.D.C. 

App.D.C 

13  App.D.C. 

107 

9  App.D.C 

.503 

23  App.D.C 

.526 

PATENT  CITATOR  FOR  APPEAL  CASES 


31 


Hisey  v.  Peters ,  71  O.G.    892, 

Arnold    v.    Tyler 79  O.G.      157, 

Doyle    V.     McRoberts 7!)  O.G.   1030, 

Doyle    V.    McRoberts 79  O.G.   1034, 

Painter    v.    Hall S3  O.G.   1806b, 

Estey    V.    Newton 8()  O.G.      800, 

Tracv   et   al.    v.   Leslie....,    87  O.G.     893, 

Rosell    V.    Allen 92  O.G.   1038, 

Newton    v.    Woodward 93  O.G.  2320, 

Latham     v.     Armat 9.">  O.G.     233, 

Schiipphaus   v.   Stevens...,    9.">  O.G.   14.54, 

Howard   v.    Hey 95  O.G.   1648, 

Garrels  et  al.  v.   Freeman.  103  O.G.   1684, 

Luger    V.    Browning 104   O.G.   1124, 

Brown    v.    Hill.    Jr 123  O.G.   1285, 

Orcutt    V.     McDonald,     Jr., 

and    McDonald 123  O.G.   1288, 

Potter    V.    Mcintosh 127  O.G.   1996, 

Hodges    ,128  O.G.    887, 

Hoey    ,127  0.0.2817, 

Hope,  jr.,  V.  Voight ,115  O.G.  1 585, 

Hopkins    ,128  O.G.    890, 

Hopkins     125  O.G.      670, 

Union    Carbide    Co ,135  O.G.     450, 

Hopkins  v.  Newman ,  1 34  O.G.  2028, 

Horine  v.  Wende ,129  O.G.  2858, 

Wende    v.    Horine 130  O.G.   1311, 

Howard  v.  Bowes ,137  O.G.  1126, 

Howard  v.  Hey ,  95  O.G.  1647, 

Howard    v.     Hey 86  O.G.     184, 

Brown    v.    Hill,    Jr 123  O.G.   1285, 

„       „   ,          u  \  132  O.G.  1074, 

Howell  Jr.  v.  Hess 

Huebel  v.  Bernard ,  90  O.G.    75 1 , 

Hastings    v.    Gallagher 103  O.G.     427, 

Granger  v.  Richardson ..,  110  O.G.  1726, 
Neth   and    Tamplin    v.    Oh- 

mer    and    Ohmer    v.    Oh- 

mer     135  O.G.      664, 

Hulett  V.  Long ,  89  O.G.  1141, 

Huber   v.   Aiken 88  O.G.   1525, 

Schiipphaus   v.   Stevens...,    95  O.G.   1454, 

Seeberger    v.     Dodge 114  O.G.   2383, 

Jones    V.    Starr ,117  O.G.   1496, 

Hunt  V.  McCaslin ,  79  O.G.    86 1 , 

Estey    V.    Newton ,    86  O.G.     800, 

Hunter  v.  Stikeman ,  85  O.G.    610, 

Kasson  v.  Hetherington .  ..  88  O.G.  1160, 
DeWallace   v.    Scott   et   al..    88  O.G.   1706, 

Kellv    V.     Flynn 92  O.G.   1234, 

Reichenbach    v.    Kellev 94   O.G.   1186. 

Swihart    v.    Mauldin 99  O.G.     666, 

Paul    V.    Hess 113  O.G.     848, 

Guett    V.     Tregoning 114  O.G.     544, 

Wickers     and     Furlong    v. 

McKee    129  O.G.     872, 

Sherwood  v.  Drewsen  .  .  .  .,  i;'.o  O.G.  660, 
Howell,  Jr.,  v.   Hess 132  O.G.   1075, 

Indian  Portland  Cement  Co.  134  O.G.    518, 
Ingersoll  v.  Holt ,  90  O.G.  2507, 


1895  CD. 

349, 

6App.D.C.    68 

1897  CD. 

349, 

10   App.D.C   175 

1897  CD. 

413, 

10   App.D.C   445 

1897   CD. 

413, 

10  App.D.C.  445 

1898  CD. 

91, 

App.D.C. 

1899  CD. 

284, 

14   App.D.C.      50 

1899  CD. 

306, 

14   App.D.C.   126 

1900  CD. 

333, 

16  App.D.C.   559 

1900  CD. 

406, 

17  App.D.C.      34 

1901   CD. 

337, 

17   App.D.C.   345 

1901   CD. 

365, 

17   App.D.C.   548 

1901   CD. 

375, 

18   App.D.C.   142 

1903  CD. 

56, 

21   App.D.C.   207 

1904   CD. 

593, 

21   App.D.C   201 

1906  CD. 

699, 

21   App.D.C.   291 

1906  CD. 

705, 

27  App.D.C.  288 

1906  CD. 

183, 

28   App.D.C.   510 

1907  CD. 

28  App.D.C  525 

1906  CD. 

28  App.D.C.  416 

1905  CD. 

629, 

29  App.D.C.    22 

1907  CD. 

29  App.D.C  118 

1906  CD. 

452, 

29  App.D.C.   118 

1908   CD. 

, 

App.D.C. 

1908  CD. 

30  App.D.C  402 

1907,C.D. 

29  App.D.C  415 

1907  CD. 

, 

App.D.C 

1908  CD. 

31  App.D.C  619 

1901  CD. 

,375, 

18  App.D.C.  142 

1899  CD. 

8, 

18  App.D.C.   142 

1906  CD. 

699, 

App.D.C. 

1908-C.D, 

30  App.D.C  194 
28  App.D.C  167 

1901  CD. 

223, 

15  App.D.C  510 

1903  CD. 

83, 

21   App.D.C.   291 

1904   CD. 

211, 

21   App.D.C.      88 

1908   CD. 

30  App.D.C.   478 

1899  CD, 

,416, 

15  App.D.C  284 

1899   CD. 

166, 

App.D.C 

1901   CD. 

365, 

17   App.D.C.   548 

1904   CD. 

505, 

24   App.D.C.   476 

1905  CD. 

694, 

26  App.D.C.      64 

1897  CD, 

.401, 

10  App.D.C  527 

1899  CD. 

284, 

14   App.D.C.      50 

1898  CD, 

.564, 

13  App.D.C  214 

1899  CD. 

143, 

App.D.C 

1899   CD. 

416, 

15   App.D.C.    157 

1900  CD. 

118, 

16  App.D.C.   573 

1901   CD. 

282, 

17  App.D.C.   333 

1902  CD. 

137, 

19  App.D.C.   570 

1904   CD. 

478, 

24   App.D.C.   462 

1905  CD. 

23, 

App.D.C. 

1907  CD. 

29   App.D.C.        4 

1907  CD. 

29  App.D.C    161 

1907  CD. 

, 

30  App.D.C.   194 

1908  CD 

> 

30  App.D.C.  463 

1900  CD 

.253, 

15  App.D.C.  519 

32 


PATENT  CITATOR  FOR  APPEAL,  CASES 


In  re  Fullagar ,138  O.G.    259, 

Westinghouse    v.    Duncan,    66  O.G.   1009, 

Allen    V.    Lowrie 116  O.G.   2253, 

Union       Di.st.       Co.       v. 

Schneider    

Podlesak  v.  Mclnnerney .  .,  120  O.G.   2127, 

Iwan     ,  95  O.G.    441 

Jackson  v.  Getz ,  91  O.G.  1036 

Jackson  v.  Knapp ,  91  O.G.  1034 

Donnelly    v.    Wyman ,  103  O.G.     659. 

Jansson  v.  Larsson ,132  O.G.    477 

Jenner  v.  Dickson ,117  O.G.    600 

Johnson  v.  Mueser , 

Jones  V.  Starr ,117  O.G.  1495 

Jones    V.    Starr Ill   O.G.   2221, 

Jones  &  Taylor  v.  Cooke.  .,117  O.G.  1493 

Kelly  V.   Fynn ,  92  O.G.  1237 

Kempshall  v.  Royce ,129  0..G3162 

Kentucky  Dist.   Co.  v.   Old 

Co ,138  O.G.    222 

1689 

729, 
1841, 


Kilbourn  v.  Hirner ,128 

Kilbourn    v.    Hirner ,122 

Kilbourn    v.    Hirner ,124 


Kinsman  v.  Kintner. 
Kinsman  v.  Strohm .  . 


Kinsman    v.     Strohm. 
Kinsman    v.     Strolim. 

Klemm 

Klemm     

Weber    and    Barry, 

Krea?  v.  Geen 


Jr. 


,136 
,136 

,120 
,  125 

,103 

,  102 
,  111 

,127 


O.G. 

O.G. 
O.G. 

O.G. 
O.G. 

O.G. 
O.G. 

O.G, 

O.G. 
O.G. 

O.G, 


1532 
1769 

2127, 
1699, 

1682 

1553, 

2220, 

1581 


Laas  &  Sponenburg  v.  Scott,  122  O.G.    352 

Lowrie  v.  Taylor  and  Tay 
lor     


Lacroix    , 

LaFlare  v.  Chase , 

LaFlare    v.    Chase , 

Miles    V.    Todd 

Blackman    v.    Alexander.  ., 

Lane  v.  Levi , 

Larkin  v.  Richardson , 

Latham  v.  Armat 


Schiipphaus  v.   Stevens.. 

Luger    V.    Browning 

Paul    V.    Hess 

Orcutt    V.     McDonald,     Jr., 
and    McDonald 


123 

133 

74 

72 
112 
113 

104 

127 
95 

95 
104 
115 


123 

Lattig  &  Goodrum  v.  Dean, 117 

111 

115 

,114 

,  112 
,119 


Lattig     and      Goodrum     v.  / 
Dean     ( 


Lemp  V.  Mudge 

Lemp   V.   Mudge 

Pohle    V.    McKnight. 


O.G.   1665, 

O.G. 2181 
O.G.  1738 

O.G.  741, 
O.G.  1480, 
O.G.   1708b, 

O.G.  1898 
O.G. 2394 
O.G.    232 

O.G.  1454, 
O.G.  1124, 
O.G.      252, 

O.G.   1288, 

O.G.  1789, 
O.G.      301, 
O.G.      505, 

O.G.    763, 

O.G.  727, 
O.G.   2520, 


1894  CD.    170, 
1905  CD.   643, 


1906  CD.   558, 

1901  CD.  344 
1900  CD.  284 
1900  CD.  281 

1903  CD.     95, 

1907  CD. 
1905  CD.  672 

1905  CD.  694 

1904  CD.   344, 

1905  CD.  689 
1900  CD.  339 

1907  CD. 

1908  CD. 

1907  CD. 

1906  CD.  161, 
1906  CD.   367, 

1908  CD. 
1908  CD. 

1906  CD.  481, 
1906  CD.   481, 

1903  CD.  540 

1903  CD.      54, 

1904  CD.   693, 

1906  CD. 

1906  CD.  621 

1906  CD.   722, 

1908 
1896 

1895 
1904 
1904 


2  App.D.C   132 
26  App.D.C.        8 


CD. 

CD.  285 

CD.  32, 
CD.  420, 
CD.   521, 


1903 

1908 
1901 

1901 
1904 
1905 


CD.  601 
CD. 
CD.  337 

CD.  365, 
CD.  .593, 
CD.   610, 


26  App. 

17App 
16  App 
16  App 

21   App. 

30  App 

25  App 
29  App 

26  App 

26  App. 

25  App 
16  App 
29  App 

31  App 
29  App 

29   App. 

29  App. 

31  App 
31  App 

31  App. 
31   App. 

21  App 

21   App. 

26  App. 

28  App 
26  App 

14   App, 

30  App. 
8  App, 

8  App. 

App. 

26  App. 


1906  CD.   705, 

1905  CD.  698, 

1904    CD.    255, 
1904   CD.   255, 

1905  CD.  571, 

1904  CD.   387, 

1905  CD.   549, 


D.C   399 

.D.C  566 
.D.C  343 
.D.C  338 

D.C     81 

.D.C  203 
.D.C  316 
D.C  661 
D.C    64 

D.C      64 

D.C  524 
D.C  573 
.D.C  181 

.D.C  223 
.D.C    54 


D.C 
D.C. 


54 
54 


.D.C  293 
.D.C  581 

D.C   581 
D.C.   581 

.D.C  186 

D.C   186 
D.C.      29 

.D.C  437 
.D.C  361 

D.C  473 

.D.C  299 
.D.C    83 

D.C     83 
D.C 
D.C.   541 

•D.C  168 


21  App 

28  App.D.C.  471 


17  App, 

17  App. 
21  App. 
24   App. 


.D.C  345 

D.C  548 
D.C.  201 
D.C.   462 


27   App.D.C.   228 

25  App.D.C  591 

25   App.D.C    501 
25   App.D.C.   .591 

24  App.D.C  282 

24   App.D.C.   282 
App.D.C. 


Patent  citator  for  appeal  cases  33 

Levy  &  Co.  V.  Uri ,135  0.0.1361,  1907  CD.        ,  31  App.D.C.  441 

L.    W.    Levy    &   Co.    v.    Uri.  l.'il   O.G.   1688,  1907  CD.  ,  31   App.D.C.   441 

Hansen      v.     Inland      Type 

Foundry    134  O.G.     776,  1908  CD.  ,  App.D.C. 

Lewis  &  Williams  v.  Crone- 

meyer    ,130O.G.    300,  1907  CD.        ,  29  App.D.C  174 

Liberman  V.  Williams ,109  O.G.  1610,  1904  CD.  623,  23  App.D.C  223 

Lindemeyer  V.  Hoffman...,  95  O.G.    838,  1901  CD.  353,  18  App.D.C      1 

Lindmark  V.  Hodgkinson..,137  0.G.    228,  1908C.D.        ,  31App.D.C.612 

Lloyd  V.  Antisdel ,95  O.G.  1645,  1901  CD.  371,  17  App.D.C.  490 

Locke    ,  94  O.G.    432,  1901  CD.  267,  17  App.D.C.  314 

Locke  V.  Boch ,93  O.G.  1722,  1900  CD.  399,  17  App.D.C.    75 

Loomis  V.  Hauser ,  99  O.G.  1 172,  1902  CD.  530,  19  App.D.C  401 

Loomis  V.   Hauser 99  O.G.      448,  1902  CD.   131,  19  App.D.C  401 

Mattlies    V.    Burt Ill   O.G.   1364,  1904   CD.   296,  24   App.D.C   26.5 

Paul   V.  Hess li;>   O.G.      252,  190.J  CD.   610,  24   App.D.C.  462 

O'Connell   v.   St-hmidt IIH  O.G.      589,  1905  CD.   342,  27  App.D.C      77 

Lotterhand  v.   Hanson.  ..  .,1 10  O.G.    861,  1904  CD.  646,  23  App.D.C  373 

Lotterhand    v.    Hanson 108  O.G.      799,  1904   CD.      39,  23  App.D.C.   372 

Taylor,   Jr 114   O.G.   1265,  1903  CD.   461,  31   App.D.C.   529 

Maroni    v.    Shoemaker 131   O.G.   1940,  1907  CD.  ,  App.D.C 

Hamm    v.     Black ,  132   O.G.      842,  1907  CD.  ,  App.D.C 

Lotz  V.  Kenney ,135  O.G.  1801,  1908  CD.        ,  31  App.D.C.  205 

Lowrie  v.  Taylor  &  Taylor,123  O.G.  1665,  1906  CD.  713,  27  App.D.C.  522 

Taylor      and      Taylor       v. 

Lowrie     123  O.G.   1991.  1906  CD.  722,  27  App.D.C.   527 

Phillips  V.  Sensenich 132  O.G.     677,  1907  CD.  ,  31   App.D.C.   159 

Lowry    v.    Duell,    Com.    of 

Pat ,88  O.G.    717,  1899  CD.  410,  14  App.D.C.  473 

Luger  V.  Browning ,104  O.G.  1 123,  1903  CD.  593,  21  App.D.C.  201 

Luger    V.    Browning loo  O.G.      231,  1902   CD.   230,  21   App.D.C.   201 

Woods    V.    Waddell 106  O.G.  2018,  1903  CD.   391,  App.D.C. 

Gaily  V.   Brand 113  O.G.      851,  1904   CD.  488,  App.D.C. 

Seeberger   v.    Dodge 114   O.G.  2383,  1904   CD.   505,  24   App.D.C.  476 

Orcutt     V.     McDonald,     Jr., 

and    McDonald 123  O.G.   1288,  1906  CD.   705,  27  App.D.C.  288 

Parkes    v.    Lewis 123  O.G.   2313,  1906  CD.   735,  28   App.D.C.        1 

Phillips    V.    Sensenich 134   O.G.   1807,  1908  CD.  ,  31   App.D.C.   159 

Lotz     V.     Kenny 135  O.G.   1803,  1908   CD.  ,  31   App.D.C.   205 

Macdonald  V.  Edison ,105  O.G.  1263,  1903  CD.  622,  21  App.D.C.  527 

MacDonald    v.    Edison ,105   O.G.      973.  1903  CD.   243,  21   App.D.C.   527 

MacDonald    v.    Edison ln5  O.G.   1263,  1903  CD.   622,  21   App.D.C.   527 

Paul  V.   Hess 115  O.G.      252,  1905  CD.  610,  24   App.D.C  462 

Rolfe    V.    Hoffman 118  O.G.      834,  1905  CD.   352,  26  App.D.C.   336 

Rolfe    V.    Hoffman 121   O.G.    1.351,  1906  CD.   588,  26   App.D.C.   3.36 

Dunbar    v.    Schellanger 128  O.G.   2840,  1907  CD.  .  29   App.D.C   129 

MacMuIkin  v.  Bollee ,130  O.G.  1691,  1907  CD.        ,  30  App.D.C  112 

Mark  Cross  Co ,116  O.G.  2534,  1 905  CD.  658,  26  App.D.C.  1 0 1 

Mark    Cross   Company 116  O.G.    1723,  1905   CD.   203,  26  App.D.C.   lol 

Marsden  v.  Duell,  Com.  of 

Pat ,87  O.G.  1239,  1899  CD.  339,  14  App.D.C.  223 

Marshutz  V.  Com.  of  Pat...,  85  0.G.    778,  1898C.D.578,  13App.D.C.236 

Phillips    V.     Sensenich 134   O.G.    1808,  1908   CD.  ,  31   App.D.C.   159 

Martin  V.  Martin  &  Co....,  122  O.G.    734,  1906  CD.  642,  27  App.D.C    59 

Bass.    Ratcliff    &    Gretton, 
Lim.,     V.     Hartmann 

Brewing    Company .121  O.G.  2328.  1906  CD.   143,  App.D.C. 


34 


PATENT  ClTATOR  FOR  APPEAL  CASES 


Marvel  v.  Decker ,  86  O.G.    348, 

Seeberger   v.    Dodge ,114  O.G.  2384, 

Mason    ,136  O.G.    441, 

Mason  v.  Hepburn ,  84  O.G.    147, 

Cain    V.    Park 86  O.G.  790, 

Estey  V.  Newton 80  O.G.  800, 

Davis  V.  Forsyth  and  For- 
syth     87  O.G.  516. 

Davis  V.  Forsyth  and  For- 
syth     87  O.G.  517, 

Ruete  V.  Elwell 87  O.G.  2121, 

Mower    v.    Duell,    Com.    of 

Pat 88  O.G.  192, 

Kasson  v.  Hetherington.  .,    88  O.G.  1160, 

DeWallace  v.  Scott  et  al. .,    88  O.G.  1706, 

Thomson    v.    Weston 94  O.G.  986, 

Reichenbach    v.    Kelley...,    94  O.G.  1188, 

Loomis  v.   Hauser ,    99  O.G.  449, 

Grassmith      ,  1(»0  O.G.  2175, 

Oliver    v.    Felbel loo  O.G.  2386, 

Blood   V.   Brown 105  O.G.  498, 

MacDonald    v.    Edison ....,  105   O.G.  975, 

Brown  v.   Blood lo5  O.G.  977, 

Quist    v.    Ostrom loO  O.G.  1507, 

Brooks   V.    Hillard 106  O.G.  1241, 

Thomas  v.  Trissel 107  O.G.  266, 

Shaffer   v.    Dolan 107  O.G.  540, 

Winter    v.    Slick    v.    Voll- 

kommer     ,107  O.G.  1660, 

Couch    v.    Burnett llo  O.G.  1432, 

Matthes    v.    Burt Ill   O.G.  1364, 

Matthes    v.    Burt Ill   O.G.  1305, 

Lemp   v.   Mudge 112  O.G.  728, 

Smith    V.    Brooks 112  O.G.  955, 

Matthes  v.  Burt ,  114  O.G.  766, 

Paul    v.    Hess ,  115  O.G.  252, 

Hammond    v.    Bascli 115  O.G.  806, 

Gallagher,   Jr.,   v.   Hien 115  O.G.  1330, 

O'Connell    v.    Schmidt ....,  118  O.G.  589, 
Oilman  and  Brown  v.  Hin- 

son    118  O.G.  1934, 

Rolfe   V.    Hoffman 121   O.G.  1351, 

Wilder      128  O.G.  4.55, 

Bliss    V.    McElroy 128  O.G.  4,59, 

Fordyce    v.    Stoetzel ,130  O.G.  2373, 

Cutler    V.    Hall 135  O.G.  449, 

Howard    v.    Bowes 137  O.G.  735, 

Matthes  v.  Burt ,1 14  O.G.    764, 

Matthes    V.    Burt Ill   O.G.  136.3, 

Bliss    V.    McElroy. ,  128  O.G.  460, 

Gordon    v.     Wetnworth 135  O.G.  1126, 

Howard   v.   Bowes 137  O.G.  735, 

McArthur  v.  Mygatt ,136  O.G.    661, 

McBerty  v.  Cook ,  90  O.G.  2295, 

Felbel    V.    Oliver 02   O.G.  2340, 

Thomson   v.   Weston 94  O.G.  986, 

Ostergren     v.     Tripler ,    95  O.G.  838, 

Oliver    v.    Felbel 100  O.G.  2386, 

Luger    V.    Browning 104  O.G.  1124, 

Brown    v.    Blood 105  O.G.  977, 

Brooks    V.     Hillard ,  106  O.G.  1241, 

Thomas    v.    Trissel 107  O.G.  267, 

Smith    V.    Brooks ,112  O.G.  955, 

Matthes    v.    Burt ,  114   O.G.  766, 

Seeberger   v.    Dodge ,114  O.G.  2383, 

Rolfe    V.    Hoffman. 121   O.G.  1351, 

Ball    V.    Flora ,121  O.G.  2668, 

Phillips    V.    Sensenich 134   O.G.  1807, 

Lotz    V.     Kenny 135  O.G.  1803, 


1899  CD.  271, 

1905  CD.   603, 

1908  CD. 

1898  CD.  510, 

1899  CD.   278, 
1899  CD.   284, 


13App.D.C562 

24   App.D.C   476 

31  App.D.C  539 

13  App.D.C    86 

14  App.D.C.      42 
14   App.D.C      50 


1899 

CD. 

79, 

App.D.C. 

1899 

CD. 

80, 

App.D.C. 

1899 

CD. 

379, 

15 

App.D.C. 

21 

1899 

CD. 

395, 

15 

App.D.C. 

144 

1899 

CD. 

143, 

App.D.C. 

1899 

CD. 

416, 

15 

App.D.C. 

1,57 

1901 

CD. 

24, 

10 

App.D.C. 

373 

1901 

CD. 

282, 

17 

App.D.C. 

333 

1902 

CD. 

131, 

19 

App.D.C. 

401 

1901 

CD. 

App.D.C 

1002 

CD. 

565, 

20 

App.D.C. 

255 

1903 

CD. 

224, 

o-> 

App.D.C. 

216 

1903 

CD. 

243, 

21 

App.D.C. 

.527 

1003 

CD. 

224, 

•>o 

App.D.C. 

216 

1003 

CD. 

348, 

23 

App.D.C 

69 

1903 

CD. 

335, 

23 

App.D.C. 

.526 

1903 

CD. 

408, 

23 

App.D.C. 

219 

1903 

CD. 

422, 

23 

App.D.C. 

19 

1903 

CD. 

477, 

App.D.C. 

1904 

CD. 

650, 

23 

App.D.C. 

446 

1004 

CD. 

206, 

24 

App.D.C 

265 

1904 

CD. 

206. 

24 

App.D.C 

265 

1904 

CD. 

387, 

24 

App.D.C 

282 

1904 

CD. 

672, 

24 

App.D.C 

75 

1905 

CM). 

574. 

24 

App.D.C 

205 

1905 

CD. 

610. 

24 

App.D.C 

462 

1905 

(M). 

615. 

24 

App.D.C. 

460 

1905 

CD. 

624. 

24 

App.D.C. 

206 

1905 

CD. 

342, 

27 

App.D.C. 

77 

1905 

CD. 

414, 

26 

App.D.C. 

400 

1906 

CD. 

588, 

26 

App.D.C. 

336 

1907 

CD. 

1 

App.D.C. 

1007 

CD. 

, 

29 

App.D.C. 

120 

1907 

CD. 

^ 

App.D.C. 

1908 

CD. 

J 

31 

App.D.C. 

297 

1008 

CD. 

• 

31 

App.D.C. 

619 

1905  CD 

.574, 

24 

App.D.C 

:.  26 

1004 

CD. 

206, 

24 

App.D.C 

265 

1907 

CD. 

29 

App.D.C. 

120 

1008 

(M). 

31 

App.D.C. 

150 

1008 

CD. 

, 

31 

App.D.C. 

019 

:  908  CD. 


31  App.D.C  514 


1900  CD. 

.248, 

16  App.D.C 

;.  13 

1900  CD. 

150, 

20  App.D.C 

255 

1001  CD. 

24, 

10  App.D.C. 

373 

1001  CD. 

3.50, 

17  App.D.C. 

55V 

1902  CD. 

565, 

20  App.D.C. 

255 

1004  CD. 

503, 

21  App.D.C 

201 

1903  CD. 

224. 

22  App.D.C 

216 

1903  CD. 

335. 

23  App.D.C. 

526 

1903  CD. 

408. 

23  App.D.C. 

219 

1904  CD. 

672, 

24  App.D.C 

75 

1905  CD. 

574. 

24  App.D.C. 

265 

1005  CD. 

603, 

24  App.D.C 

476 

1005  CD. 

588. 

26  App.D.C. 

330 

1006  CD. 

618, 

26  App.D.C. 

394 

1008  CD. 

31  App.D.C. 

159 

1908  CD. 

, 

31  App.D.C 

205 

PATENT  CITATOR  FOR  APPEAL  CASES  35 

McCormick  V.  Cleal ,83  0.G.  1514,  1898  CD.  492,  12  App.D.C.  335 

McCormick    v.    Cleal 80  O.G.    1014,  1897  CD.      5.-..  12   App.D.C.   ."..•{.j 

DeWallace  v.  Scott  et  al. .,    8S  O.G.   1700,  1899  CD.   410.  15  App.D.C   ir)7 

Woodward   v.    Newton ,    92   O.G.      881,  1900  CD.   ;{81,  17  App.D.C.      ;{4 

Chlstensen     v.     Ellis ,    94  O.G.   2562.  1901   CD.   326,  17  App.D.C.   498 

Swihart    v.    Mauklin 99  O.G.      666,  1902  CD.   137,  19  App.D.C.   570 

Clement      v.      Richards     v. 

Meissner    113  O.G.    1145,  1904   CD.  492.  24   App.D.C.   .-505 

Seeberg-er   v.    Dodge 114   O.G.   2384,  1905  CD.   603,  24   App.D.C   470 

Turnbull     v.     Curtis ,120  O.G.   2444,  1900  CD.   732,  27  App.D.C.   507 

Kempshall  v.  Royse 129   O.G.   3103,  1907  CD.  ,  29   App.D.C   181 

McCormick  v.  Hallwood.  .,130  O.G.  1487,  1907  CD.   ,  30  App.D.C  106 

McCreery  v.  Seymour,  C  (  79  O.G.  1684,  1898  CD.  480,  12  App.D.C.  517 

of  Pat 1  83  O.G.  1210,  1898  CD.  478,  12  App.D.C.  517 

Mcllhenny's  Son  v.  N.  I.  E. 

T.  P.  Co ,133  O.G.  995,  1908  CD.   ,  30  App.D.C  337 

Hansen     v.      Inland     Type 

Foundry     134   O.G.      775,  1908  CD.  ,  App.D.C. 

Battle  Creek  etc.  v.  Ful- 
ler       ,134   O.G.   1300,  1908  CD.  ,  30  App.D.C.   411 

McKenzie   v.    Cummings.  .,1 12  O.G.  1481,  1905  CD.  683,  24  App.D.C.  137 

McKillop  V.  Fetzer ,136  O.G.  1770,  1908  CD.        ,  31  App.D.C.  58G 

McKnight  V.  Pohle ,130  O.G.  2070,  1907  CD.        ,  30  App.D.C.    92 

McKnight  v.  Pohl  &  Croas- 

dale    ,105  O.G.    977,  1905  CD.  619,  22  App.D.C  219 

Pohle    V.    McKnight 119  O.G.   2520,  1905  CD.   549,  30  App.D.C.      92 

McKnight     v.     Pohle 130  O.G.   2070,  1907  CD.  ,  30  App.D.C.      92 

McNeil    ,100O.G.2178,  1902C.D.  563,  20  App.D.C  294 

McNeil      100  O.G.   1970,  1902   CD.   313,  20  App.D.C.   294 

Lahue     lOlO.G.      449,  1902   CD.   357,  App.D.C. 

Hawley    121   O.G.      692,  1906  CD.   576,  26  App.D.C.   324 

McNeil  &  Sturtevant ,126  O.G.  3425,  1906  CD.        ,  28  App.D.C.  461 

Mead  v.  Davis  &  Varney.  .,136  O.G.  2001,  1908  CD.        ,  31  App.D.C.  590 

Mell  V.  Midgley ,136  O.G.  1534,  1908CD.        ,  31  App.D.C.  534 

Mergenthaler  v.  Scudder.  .,81  O.G.  1417,  1897  CD.  724,  1 1  App.D.C.  264 

Winslow    V.    Austin 86  O.G.   2172,  1899   CD.   301,  14  App.D.C.   137 

DeWallace  v.  Scott  et  al.,  88  O.G.  1705,  1899  CD.  416,  15  App.D.C.  157 
DeWallace  v.  Scott  et  al..,  88  O.G.  706,  1899  CD.  416,  15  App.D.C.  157 
Reichenbach  v.  Kelley...,  94  O.G.  1186,  1901  CD.  282,  17  App.D.C.  333 
Garrells  et  al.  v.  Freeman,  103  O.G.  1684,  1903  CD.  56,  21  App.D.C.  207 
Ritter  v.  Krakau  and  Con- 
ner,   Jr ,111    O.G.    1936.  1904   CD.   325.  24   App.D.C.   271 

Barrett   v.   Harter 112  O.G.      730,  1904   CD.   392,  24   App.D.C.   300 

Messinger  v.  Com.  of  Pat.,  83  O.G.  1995,  1898  CD.  506,  12  App.D.C  532 

Laughlin    and    Reuleaux..,    92  O.G.   2004,  1900  CD.   145,  App.D.C 

Blackman    v.    Alexander ..,  105  O.G.   200O,  1903  CD.   288.  20  App.D.C.  541 

Meyer  V.  Rothe ,  84  O.G.    649,  1898  CD.  534,  13  App.D.C.    97 

Meyer  v.  Sarfert ,102  O.G.  1555,  1903  CD.  529,  21  App.D.C    26 

Meyer   v.    Sarfert 90  O.G.   1037,  1901   CD.      91,  21   App.D.C.      26 

French    v.    Halcomb 115  O.G.      500,  1905  CD.   547.  26  App.D.C.  307 

Lewis     and      Williams      v. 

Cronemeyer    ,130  O.G.     302,  1907  CD.  ,  29  App.D.C.   174 

Michigan    Condensed    Milk 

Co.  V.  Kenneweg  Co....,135  0.G.    451,  1908C.D.        ,  30App.D.C.491 

Falkenberg    115  O.G.   1066,  1905  CD.   109,  App.D.C. 

Buchanan   &  Co.  v.   West's 

Nephews    ,124   O.G.   1524,  1906  CD.  ,  App.D.C 


36  PATENT  CITATOR  FOR  APPEAL  CASES 

Miehle  V.  Read ,  96  O.G.    426,  1901C.D.396,  18  App.D.C.  128 

Osborn   v.    Hotsapillar ,102  O.G.   1297,  1903   CD.      47,  App.D.C. 

Donnelly   v.  Wyman ,  lO;}  O.G.      e,r,9,  1903   CD.      95,  21   App.D.C      81 

Furnian     v.     Dean 114   O.G.   1553,  1905  CD.   582.  24  App.D.C  277 

Miel  V.  Young ,128  O.G.  2532,  1906  CD.  124,  29  App.D.C.  481 

Miel    V.    Young 121   O.G.   1350,  1906  CD.   124,  29  App.D.C  481 

Milans   ,135  0.0.1122,  1907  CD.        ,  31  App.D.C  269 

Miller  V.  Killey ,96O.G.1038,  1901  CD.  405,  18App.D.C163 

Miller  v.  Kelley 84   O.G.   1144,  1898  CD.   150,  18  App.D.C  163 

Weber   v.    Flather 103  O.G.     223,  1903  CD.     70,  21  App.D.C   179 

Peckham  v.   Price 118  O.G.   1935,  1905  CD.  323,  App.D.C. 

Millett,     Reid     &     Crosley 
Steam  Gage  Co.  v.  Allen 

Com.  of  Pat ,115  O.G.  1586,  1905  CD.  712,  27  App.D.C.    70 

Millett     et     al.     v.     Allen, 

Com.    of    Pat 124   O.G.   1524,  1906  CD.   752.  27  App.D.C.     70 

Millett    &    Reid,  v.     Duell 

Com.  of  Pat ,96  O.G.  1241,  1901  CD.  410,  18  App.D.C.  186 

Grosselin     ,    97  O.G.   2979,  1901   CD.   248,  App.D.C. 

Mills    ,117  O.G.    904,  1905  CD.  677,  25  App.D.C.  377 

Milton  V.  Kingsley ..." ,  75  O.G.  2 1 93,  1 896  CD.  420,  7  App.D.C.  53 1 

Milton     V.     King.sley ,    71   O.G.      887,  1895   CD.        3,  7   App.D.C.   531 

Weber    v.    Flather 103  O.G.      223,  1903  CD.      70,  21   App.D.C.   179 

Hastings    v.    Gallagher ...,  103  O.G.     427.  1903  CD.     83,  21   App.D.C     88 

Granger    v.     Richardson.  .,  110  O.G.   1726,  1904   CD.   211,  App.D.C 

Jackson   v.   Summerfield.  .,  112  O.G.   1214,  1904   CD.  403,  App.D.C. 

Peckham    v.     Price 118  O.G.   1935,  1905  CD.   323.  App.D.C. 

Larkin    v.    Richardson 122  O.G.   2391,  1906  CD.   209,  28  App.D.C   471 

Milton  V.  Kingsley ,  75  O.G.  2195,  1896  CD.  426,  7  App.D.C.  531 

Garrells  et  al.  v.   Freeman,  103  O.G.   1684,  1903  CD.     5G,  21   App.D.C.  207 

Moeser    ,  1 23  O.G.    655,  1 906  CD.  685,  27  App.D.C.  307 

Moffatt  V.  Weiss ,137  O.G.    148, 

Podle.sak  v.   Mclnnerney .  .,  120  O.G.   2127,  1906  D.C   558,  26  App.D.C.   399 

Mondv.  Duell,  Com.  of  Pat.,  91  O.G.  1487,  1900  CD.  298,  16  App.D.C.  351 

Moore  V.  Hewitt ,136  O.G.  1535,  1908C.D.        ,  31  App.D.C.  577 

Morrissey  v.  Seymour,  Com. 

of  Pat ,  79  O.G.  1684,  1897  CD.  481, 

Mower   v.    Duell,    Com.    of 

Pat ,  88  O.G.    191,  1899  CD.  395,  15  App.D.C  144 

Thomson    v.    Weston 94   O.G.      9RG,  1901   CD.      24,  19  App.D.C.   373 

Reichentaach    v.    Kelley...,    94   O.G.   1188,  1901   CD.   282,  17  App.D.C.   333 

Brooks    V.     Hillard .106  O.G.   1241,  1903  CD.   335,  23  App.D.C.   526 

Thomas    v.    Trissel 107  O.G.      266,  1903   CD.   408,  23  App.D.C.   219 

Matthes    v.    Burt Ill  O.G.   1356,  1904   CD.  296,  24   App.D.C.   265 

Matthes    v.    Burt 

Oilman  and  Brown  v.  Hin-  114  O.G.     766.  1905  CD.   574.  24  App.D.C.   265 

Gilman'and  Brown  V.'Hin- 118  O.G.   1934.  1905  CD.  414,  26  App.D.C.  409 

son     122  O.G.      733,  1906  CD.   634,  26  App.D.C.   409 

Wilder      128  O.G.      455,  1907   CD.          ,  App.D.C 

Munson  v.  Carper ,  79  O.G.    160,  1897  CD.  359, 

Munster  v.  Ash  worth ,  1 28  O.G.  2088,  1 907  CD.        ,  29  App.D.C.    84 

Murphy  V.  Meissner ,1 14  O.G.  1830,  1905C.D.592,  24  App.D.C  260 

Musgrove  &  Mye  v.  Com.  of 

Pat ,  78  O.G.  2047,  1897  CD.  336,  10  App.D.C.  164 


PATENT  CITATOR  FOR  APPEAL  CASES 


Mygatt ,121  O.G.  1676, 

Mygatt     Ill   O.G.   24!);}, 

Mygatt     115  O.G.   lUGO, 

Mygatt     ,118  O.G.   1(J85, 

National  Phonograph  Co..  .,128  O.G.  1295, 

Hansen     v.     Inland     Type 

Foundry    134  O.G.     776, 

Natural   Food  Co.  v.  Will- 
iams   ,133  O.G.    232, 

Hansen     v.     Inland     Type 

Foundry    134  O.G.     777, 

Brown-Forman        Co.        v. 

Dist.     Co ,134  O.G.   1566, 

82  O.G.    749, 

92  O.G.  1038, 
106  O.G.  1000, 
115  O.G.      804, 


37 

1906  CD.  596,  26  App.D.C.  366 

1004   CD.   364,  26  App.D.C.   366 

1!)05  CD.  ,  26  App.D.C. 

1007   CD.  ,  26  App.D.C.   366 

1907  CD. 

1908  CD. 


,   29  App.D.C  142 

App.D.C. 


Neill  V.  Com.  of  Pat. 

Rosell  V.  Allen.... 
Ralph  J.  Crane.... 
Dukes     


Nielson  v.  Bradshaw. 


Lewis     and      Williams 

Cronemeyer    

Hartley    


Nielson  v.  Bradshaw. 


Lewis     and      Williams 
Cronemeyer    


Neth  &  Tamplin  v.  Ohmer 
Neth  &  Tamplin  v.  Ohmer 

Neth   and    Tamplin   v.    Oh- 
mer      

Neth   and    Tamplin   v.   Oh- 
mer      

Neth  and  Tamplin  v.  Oh 
mer  and  Ohmer  v.  Oh 
mer     


Newton  v.  Woodward. 


Newton    v.    Woodward... 

Latham   v.    Armat 

Schiipphaus  v.   Stevens... 

Orcutt    V.     McDonald,     Jr. 

and    McDonald 


Nimmy  v.  Com.  of  Pat. 
Nordon  v.  Spaulding. 

Burson     v.     Vogel... 


Northall  v.  Bernardin.  . . 

Bernardin  v.  Northall  and 
Seymour,    Com.    of    Pat 

Bernardin  v.  Seymour 
Com.    of    Pat 

U.  S.  ex  rel.,  Bernardin  v, 
Duell,   Com.   of   Pat... 


O'Connell  v.  Schmidt 

Ocumpaugh  v.  Norton.... 
Mead    v.    Davis    and    Var^ 

ney     

Mead    v.    Davis    and    Var 


ney    

Ocumpaugh  v.  Norton.  . 

Goodfellow    V.    Jolly... 
Dunbar   v.    Schellenger. 

Ocumpaugh  v.  Norton.. 
Ohmer  v.  Ohmer 


1908  CD. 

1908  CD. 
1908  CD. 

1898  CD. 

1900  CD. 
1903  CD. 
1905  CD. 


332, 
333, 
332, 
100, 


30App 

App 
30  App. 

11  App 

16  App. 
App. 
App 


.D.C  348 

D.C 
D.C.  485 

.D.C  584 

D.C   559 

D.C. 

D.C. 


91  O.G.    644,    1900  CD.  265,    10  App.D.C    92 
274, 


130 
136 

91 

130 

135 
123 

116 
120 


O.G.     302, 
O.G.   1767, 

O.G.    648, 

O.G.     302, 


O.G. 
O.G. 

O.G. 
O.G. 


662, 
998, 

874, 
323, 


135  O.G.     662, 


1907  CD. 

1908  CD. 

1900  CD. 

1907  CD. 

1908  CD. 
1906  CD. 

1905  CD. 

1906  CD. 

1908  CD. 


693, 


693. 


29  App. 
App. 

16  App 

29  App. 

30  App 
27  App 

27  App 

30  App 


D.C   174 
D.C. 

.D.C    92 

D.C  174 

.D.C  478 
.D.C  319 

D.C  319 
D.C  478 


123 
86 

114 
131 

74 


79 

86 

122 
110 

136 
136 
114 
115 

128 

115 
135 


O.G. 

O.G. 
O.G. 
O.G. 

O.G. 

O.G. 
O.G. 

O.G. 

O.G. 

O.G. 
O.G. 
O.G. 

O.G. 

O.G. 
O.G. 
O.G. 

O.G. 

O.G. 
O.G. 

O.G, 
O.G. 


2314, 

2020, 

233, 

1454, 

1288, 

345, 
1828, 

944, 

655, 

1740, 

1192, 

996, 

2065, 
1723, 

2003, 

2004, 

545, 
1064, 
2840, 

1850, 
662, 


1900 

1898 
1901 
1901 

1906 

1899 

1905 

1907 


CD. 

CD. 
CD. 
CD. 

CD. 

CD. 
CD. 

CD. 


406, 

206, 
337, 
365, 

705. 

265, 

588, 


1896  CD.  183, 

1897  CD.  327. 
1897   CD.   428, 

287, 

662, 


1899  CD. 

1906  CD. 


1904  CD.  207, 
1908  CD. 
1908  CD. 

1905  CD. 

1905  CD. 
1907  CD. 

1905  CD, 
1908  CD. 


569, 

105. 

632, 


30  App.D.C.  478 

17  App.D.C    34 

17  App.D.C.  84 
17  App.D.C.  345 
17  App.D.C.   548 

27  App.D.C.   228 

13  App.D.C  565 
24  App.D.C.  286 

29  App.D.C   388 

7  App.D.C  452 

7  App.D.C.  452 
10  App.D.C.  294 
13  App.D.C.   379 

27  App.D.C    77 

24  App.D.C.  296 

31  App.D.C.  590 
31  App.D.C.  590 

24  App.D.C  296 

App.D.C 

29  App.D.C.   129 

25  App.D.C    90 

30  App.D.C  478 


38  PATENT  CITATOR  FOR  APPEAL  CASES 

Oliver  v.  Felbel ,100  O.G.  2384,  1902  CD.  565,  20  App.D.C.  255 

Felber    v.    Oliver 100  O.G.   1975,  1902  CD.  309,  20  App.D.C.   255 

Felber    v.    Oliver 100  O.G.  2175.  1902  CD.  565.  20  App.D.C.   255 

Snider  v.   Bunnell 101  O.G.  2572.  1902  CD.  400,  App.D.C. 

Snider  v.   Bunnell 103  O.G.     890,  1903  CD.   117.  App.D.C. 

Luger   V.    Browning 104  O.G.   1124,  1904  CD.  593,  21  App.D.C  201 

Brown   v.   Blood 105  O.G.      977,  1903  CD.   224,  22  App.D.C.   216 

Ralph    J    Crane 106  O.G.   1000,  1903  CD.  332,  App.D.C. 

Brooks    V.    Hillard 106  O.G.  1241,  1903  CD.  335,  23  App.D.C.  526 

Woods    V.    Waddell ,106  O.G.  2018,  1903  CD.   391.  App.D.C. 

Brooks    V.    Smith 110  O.G.  2014.  1904  CD.  223,  24  App.D.C.     75 

Matthes    v.    Burt m  O.G.   1366.  1904  CD.  296.  24  App.D.C.  265 

Matthes    v.    Burt ,114  O.G.     766.  1905  CD.   574,  24  App.D.C.  265 

Lattig    and      Goodrum      v. 

Dean     117  O.G.   1799,  1905  CD.  698,  25  App.D.C  591 

Niedring    v.    Marquard    v. 

McConnell     121   O.G.     337,  1906  CD.     92,  App.D.C. 

Rolfe   V.    Hoffman ,121   O.G.   1351,  1906  CD.   588.  26  App.D.C.  336 

Gibbons   v.    Peller 127  O.G.   3644.  1907  CD.  ,  28  App.D.C.  530 

Onderdonk  V.  Parkes ,135  O.G.    665,  1908  CD.       ,  31  App.D.C  214 

Orcutt  V.   McDonald  Jr.   & 

McDonald   ,123  0.0.1287,  1906  CD.  705,  27  App.D.C  228 

Richards   v.   Burkholder.  ..  128  O.G.  2534.  1907  CD.  ,  29  App.D.C.  485 

Original  La  Tosca  Club  v. 

La  Tosca  Social  Club. . .,  23  App.D.C.    96 

Ostergen  v.  Tripler ,  95  O.G.    837,  1901  CD.  350,  17  App.D.C.  557 

Parker  v.  Appert ,  75  O.G.  1 20 1 ,  1 896  CD.  37 1 ,  8  App.D.C  270 

Appert   v.    Parker 74  O.G.   1587.  1896  CD.       5.  8  App.D.C.  270 

Cross   V.   Phillips 87  O.G.   1401.  1899  CD.  342.  14  App.D.C   228 

Friestedt   r.   Harold 116  O.G.     594,  1905  CD.  161,  App.D.C. 

Neth   and    Tamplin   t.    Oh- 

mer     116  O.G.     875.  1905  CD.  .  27  App.D.C.  319 

Parkes  v.  Lewis ,123  O.G.  2313,  1906  CD.  735,  28  App.D.C      1 

Parkes    v.    Lewis 110  O.G.     305,  1904   CD.   142,  28  App.D.C.       1 

Parkes    v.    Lewis 120  O.G.     323,  1906  CD.   735,  28  App.D.C       1 

Paul  V.  Hess ,115  O.G.    251,  1905  CD.  610,  24  App.D.C  462 

Paul    V.    Hess 113  O.G.     847.  1904  CD.  478.  24  App.D.C  462 

Turnbull    v.    Curtis 120  O.G.   2444,  1906  CD.   732,  27  App.D.C  567 

Dunbar    v.    Schellenger.  .  ..  128  O.G.  2840.  1907  CD.         .  29  App.D.C.   129 
Wickers    and    Furlong    v. 

McKee    129  O.G.     872,  1907  CD.  ,  29  App.D.C       4 

Moore   v.   Hewitt 136  O.G.   1536,  1908  CD.  ,  31  App.D.C.   577 

Paul  V.  Johnson ,109  O.G.    807,  1904  CD.  610,  25  App.D.C.  187 

Paul    V.    Johnson 106  O.G.   2013.  1903  CD.   308.  23  App.D.C.   187 

Peton  V.  Evered ,  77  O.G.  1 600,  1 896  CD.  65 1 ,  19  App.D.C.  386 

Pearsall ,  31  App.D.C.  265 

Petrie  v.  DeSchweinitz ,  99  O.G.  1387,  1902  CD.  534,  19  App.D.C  386 

Petrie    v.    DeSchweinitz...    99  O.G.     446.  1902  CD.   127.  19  App.D.C.  386 

Phillips  V.  Sensenich ,134  O.G.  1806,  1908  CD.       ,  31  App.D.C  159 

Phillips    V.    Sensenich 132  O.G.     677.  1908  CD.  .  31  App.D.C   159 

Lotz   V.    Kenny 135  O.G.   1802.  1908  CD.  .  31  App.D.C.  205 

Pickard  v.  Ashton  and 

Curtis ,137  O.G.    732, 

Foster    v.    Antisdel 88  O.G.     957,  24   App.D.C.  552 

Prindle    v.    Brown 112  O.G.     957,  24   App.D.C.   114 

Pickles  V.  Aglar ,  86  O.G.    346,  1899  CD.  268,  13  App.D.C.  556 

Piatt  V.  Shipley ,  82  O.G.    461,  1898C.D.307,  1 1  App.D.C.  576 

Pihl    V.    Mersman 106  O.G.   1776.  1903  CD.  367,  App.D.C. 

Seeberger  v.    Dodge ,114  O.G.  2384,  1905  CD.   603.  24  App.D.C.  476 


PATENT  CITATOR  FOR  APPEAL  CASES 


39 


Podlesak  &  Podlesak  v.  Mc- 

Innerney   ,120  O.G.  2127, 

Mifl    V.    Young- ,  llil   O.G.   i;{5(>. 

Potter    V.    Mcintosh 122  O.G.   1722, 

Lowry      and      Cowley      v. 

Spoon      ,122  O.G.  2688, 

Browne   v.    Stroud ,122  O.G.  2689, 

Podlesak   and    Podlesak   v. 

Mclnnerney    123  O.G.   1989, 

Parkes    v.    Lewis ,  12;$  O.G.  2313, 

Brown    V.    Hodgkinson ....  123  O.G.  2973, 

Blackford    v.    Wilder 124  O.G.     319, 

Dixon  and  Marsh  v.  Graves 

and    Whittemore 127  O.G.   1994, 

Kilbourn    v.    Hirner 128  O.G.   1690, 

Wickers    and    Furlong    v. 

McKee    ,129  O.G.     874, 

MacMulken  v.  Bollee ,  130  O.G.   1691, 

Eilerman     et     al.     v.     Mc- 

Elroy    ,130  O.G.  2721, 

Gueniffet,    Benoit    and   Ni- 

cault  V.  Wictorsohn.  . .,  134  O.G.  255, 
Viele    V.    Cummings 134  O.G.     779, 

Porter  v.  Louden ,  73  O.G.  1 55 1 , 

Croskey    v.    Atterbury 75  O.G.  1360, 

Arnold    v.    Tyler 79  O.G.  157, 

Estey  V.   Newton ,    86  O.G.  800, 

Kasson  V.   Hetherington.  .,    88  O.G.  1159, 

Osborn   v.   Hotsapillar ,102  O.G.  1297, 

Haskell    v.    Miner    v.    Ball,  109  O.G.  2171. 

Potter  V.  Mcintosh ,127  O.G.  1995, 

Potter    V.    Mcintosh 116  O.G.   1451, 

Potter    V.    Mcintosh 120  O.G.   1823, 

Potter    V.    Mcintosh 122  O.G.  1721. 

Prindle  v.  Brown ,112  O.G.    957, 

Trufant       v.       Prindle       v. 

Brown    ,111   O.G.   1035, 

Dunbar   v.    Schellenger .  . .,  121   O.G.  2664, 
Dunbar   v.    Schellenger ....  128  O.G.  2839, 

Hamm    v.    Black 132  O.G.     842, 

Bossart    v.    Pohl.      Pohl    v. 

Bossart    ,135  O.G.     454. 

Picard  v.  Asliton  and  Cur- 
tis       ,  137  O.G.     733, 

Quist  V.  Ostrom ,108  O.G.  2147, 

Quist  V.  Ostrom 106  O.G.   1501, 

Reichenbach  v.  Kelley ,  94  O.G.  1 185, 

Tyler   v.    St.   Amand 94  O.G.  1970, 

Latham   v.    Armat 95  O.G.  234, 

Howard   v.    Hey 95  O.G.  1648, 

Paul  V.  Hess 115  O.G.  252. 

Richard  v.  Meissner ,  1 1 4  O.G.  1 83 1 , 

Neth    and    Tamplin    v.    Oh- 

mer     123  O.G.     999, 

Dunbar   v.    Schellenger 128  O.G.  2839, 

Hansen     v.      Inland     Type 

Foundry    134  O.G.     776, 

Kinsman   v.   Strohm 136  O.G.   1770, 

Richard  v.  Buckholder ,128  O.G.  2533, 

Howard  v.   Bowes 137  O.G.     735, 

Ries  V.  Kirkegaard  &  Jebsen,  1 32  O.G.    845, 
Ritter  v.  Krakau  &  Connor, 

Jr ,114  O.G.  1553, 

Ritter  v.  Krakau  and  Con- 
nor,   Jr ,  108  O.G.   1050, 

Roberts  v.  Brinkman ,  79  O.G.  1 190, 


1906  CD.  558, 

1900  CD.  124 
1906  CD.  183 

1906  CD.  224 
1906  CD.  226 

1906  CD.  265 
1906  CD.  735 
1906  CD.  290 

1906  CD.  304 

1907  CD. 
1907  CD. 

1907  CD. 
1907  CD. 

1907  CD. 

1908  CD. 
1908  CD. 

1895  CD.  707, 

1896  CD. 

1897  CD. 
1899  CD.  284, 
1899  CD.  143, 

1903  CD. 

1904  CD. 


349 


47 
131 


26  App.D.C.  399 

29  App.D.C.  481 
28  App.D.C  510 

App.D.C. 
App.D.C 

26  App.D.C.  399 

28  App.D.C.   1 

App.D.C. 

28  App.D.C  535 

App.D.C. 

29  App.D.C.  54 

29  App.D.C.   4 

30  App.D.C.  112 

App.D.C. 

30  App.D.C.  432 
30  App.D.C.  455 

7  App.D.C  64 

9  App.D.C  207 
10  App.D.C.  175 
14  App.D.C.  50 

App.D.C. 

App.D.C. 

App.D.C. 


1907  CD.   ,  28  App.D.C.  510 

1905  CD.  195,  28  App.D.C.  510 

1906  CD.  56,  28  App.D.C.  510 
1906  CD.  183,  28  App.D.C.  510 

1904  CD.  680,  24  App.D.C.  1 14 


1904  CD.  282, 

1906  CD.  147, 

1907  CD. 

1908  CD. 

1908  CD. 
1908  CD. 

1904  CD.  594, 

1903  CD.  348. 

1901  CD.  282, 

1901  CD.  301, 
1901  CD.  337, 
1901  CD.  375, 

1905  CD.  610, 

1905  CD.  595, 

1906  CD.  693, 

1907  CD. 

1908  CD. 
1908  CD. 

1907  CD. 

1908  CD. 

1908  CD. 


24  App.D.C.  114 

29  App.D.C.  129 

29  App.D.C.  129 

App.D.C. 

31  App.D.C.  218 

App.D.C. 

23  App.D.C  69 

23  App.D.C.  69 

17  App.D.C  333 

17  App.D.C.  464 

17  App.D.C.  345 

18  App.D.C  142 

24  App.D.C.  462 

24  App.D.C  305 

27  App.D.C.  319 
29  App.D.C.  129 

App.D.C. 
31  App.D.C.  581 

29  App.D.C  485 

31  App.D.C.  611 

30  App.D.C  199 


1905  CD.  585,  24  App.D.C  271 

1904  CD.  44,   24  App.D.C.  271 

1897  CD.  427,  10  App.D.C.  543 


40 


PATENT  CITATOR  FOR  APPEAL  CASES 


Robinson  V.  Copeland. . .  ^  1120G     501 

Robinson   v.   Copeland 97  O.G.  2531. 

Robinson   v.   Copeland lo2  O.G.     466, 

Robinson   v.   Copeland ,105  O.G.     263, 

Parkes    v.    Lewis ,123  O.G.   2314. 

Robinson  v.  McCormick. .  .,128  O.G.  3289, 
Robinson  v.  Seelinger ,116  O.G.  1735, 

Sherwood   v.   Drewsen ,130  O.G.     660. 

Robinson  v.  Thresher ,123  O.G.  2976, 

Robinson   v.    Thresher 123  O.G.  2627. 

Roe  V.  Hanson ,  99  O.G.  2550, 

Shaffer   v.    Dolan 107  O.G.     540, 

Matthes    v.    Burt ,111   O.G.   1364, 

Smith    V.    Brooks ,112  O.G.     955, 

Matthes  v.  Burt 114  O.G.     766, 

Rogers,  Ltd.  v.  International 
Silver  Co ,129  O.G.  3503, 

Rolfe  V.  Hoffman ,121  O.G.  1350, 

Rose  Shoe  Mfg.  Co.  v.  A.  A. 
Rosenbush  &  Co 127  O.G.    394, 

Rose  V.  Clifford  &  Newell,  135  O.G.  1361, 

Rosebrush  v.  Holman ,  78  O.G.  1258, 

Rosell  V.  Allen ,  92  O.G.  1036, 

Ross  V.  Loewer ,  77  O.G.  2141, 

Trevette   v.   Dexter ,    84  O.G.   1283, 

Blackman  v.  Alexander.  .,  105  O.G.  2060, 
Cole  V.  Zarbock  v.  Greene,  116  O.G.   1451, 

Rousseau  v.  Brown ,104  O.G.  1 120, 

Rousseau    v.    Brown 103  O.G.     659, 

Rousseau  v.  Brown ,  1 04  O.G.  1 1 22, 

stiff    V.    Galbraith 107  O.G.   2532, 

DeFerranti  v.  Lindmark.  .,  129  O.G.   1610. 

Ruete  V.  Elwell ,  87  O.G.  21 19, 

DeWallace   v.    Scott   et  al.,    88  O.G.   1706, 

Feder    v.    Poyet 89  O.G.   1344, 

Dashiell   v.   Tasker 102  O.G.   1552, 

Ocumpaugh  v.  Norton.  ...,  no  O.G.  1724. 
Funk  et  al.  v.  Whitely . .,  117  O.G.  280, 
Podlesak   and    Podlesak   v. 

Mclnnerney    120  O.G.   2130, 

Alexander   v.    Blackman. .,  121  O.G.   1981, 

Sachs  V.  Hundhausen ,105  O.G.  1534, 

Schaeffer ,  66  O.G.    514, 

Schiipphaus  v.  Stevens.  . .  .,  95  O.G.  1445, 

Schiipphaus    100  O.G.  2776, 

O-sborn   v.   Hotsapillar 102  O.G.   1297, 

Newcomb    v.    Lemp 112  O.G.   1216, 

Seeberger   v.    Dodge 114  O.G.  2383, 

Schoenhofen  Brewing  Co.  v. 

The  Maltine  Co ,134  O.G.  1804, 

Schraubstadter   ,120  O.G.  1 167, 

Schraubstadter   116  O.G.  1185, 

Smith    130  O.G.   1689. 


1904  CD.  664, 

1901  CD.  227, 

1903  CD.  13, 

1903  CD.  218, 

1906  CD.  735, 


1 1  App.D.C 
24  App.D.C. 

24  App.D.C. 
24  App.D.C. 
24  App.D.C. 
28  App.D.C. 


58 
68 

68 


1907  CD.        ,  29  App.D.C.    98 

1905  CD.  640,  25  App.D.C.  237 

1907  CD.  .  29  App.D.C  161 

1906  CD.  743,  28  App.D.C.    22 

1906  CD.  ,  28  App.D.C.      22 

1 902  CD.  546,  1 9  App.D.C  559 

1903  CD.   422,  23  App.D.C.     79 

1904  CD.   296,  24  App.D.C.  265 

1904  CD.   223,  24   App.D.C.      75 

1905  CD.  574,  24  App.D.C.  265 


1907  CD.        ,  30  App.D.C.    97 
1906  CD.  588,   26  App.D.C.  336 


1907  CD. 

28  App.D.C.  465 

1908  CD. 

31  App.D.C.  195 

1897  CD.  322, 

1900  CD.  333, 

16  App.D.C.  559 

1896  CD.  665, 

1898  CD.   160, 
1903  CD.   288, 
1905  CD.   194, 

1903  CD.  587, 

1903  CD.   101, 

9  App.D.C.  563 

App.D.C 

26  App.D.C   541 

App.D.C. 

21  App.D.C    73 

21  App.D.C.     73 

1903  CD.  592, 

1904  CD.      10, 
1907   CD. 

21  App.D.C    73 

App.D.C 
30  App.D.C.  417 

1900  CD.  379, 

1899  CD.  416, 
1899  CD.   218, 

1903  CD.     50, 

1904  CD.  207, 

1905  CD.     34, 

15  App.D.C    21 

15  App.D.C.   157 

App.D.C. 
21  App.D.C.     64 

24  App.D.C.   296 

25  App.D.C  313 

1906  CD.  558, 
1906  CD.   602, 

26  App.D.C.  399 
26  App.D.C.   541 

1903  CD.  625, 

21  App.D.C  511 

1894  CD.  134, 

2  App.D.C.      1 

1901  CD.  365, 

1902  CD.  339, 

1903  CD.      47, 

1904  CD.   412. 

1905  CD.   603, 

17  App.D.C.  548 

App.D.C 

App.D.C 

App.D.C 

24  App.D.C  476 

1908  CD. 

30  App.D.C  346 

1 906  CD.  54 1 ,  26  App.D.C.  33 1 

1905  CD.   190,        26  App.D.C.   331 

1907  CD.  .  App.D.C. 


PATENT  CITATOR  FOR  APPEAL  CASES 


41 


Schuster  Co.  v.  Muller .....  1 26  O.G.  2 1 92, 
Scott    ,117  0.0.    278, 

Scott     ,114   O.G.      200, 

Scott  V.  Scott ,  96  O.G.  1650, 

Seabury ,110  0.0.2238, 

Seabury     110  O.G.   2013, 

Seeberger  v.  Dodge ,  1 1 4  O.O.  2382, 

Seeberg-er   v.    Dodge 113  O.G.   1415, 

Pohle    V.    McKnight 119  O.G.   2521, 

Podlesak   and   Podlesak   v. 

Mclnnerney    ,120  O.G.   2130, 

Clunies     123   O.G.   2631, 

Turnbull    v.    Curtis 123  O.G.   2312, 

Turnbull    v.    Curtis 123  O.G.  2313, 

Bechman    v.    Southgate.  .  .,  127  O.G.   1255, 

Kilbourn  v.  Hirner ,128  O.G.   1690, 

Jansson    v.    Larsson 132  O.G.     477, 

Moore    v.     Hewitt 136  O.G.   1536, 

Mead    v.    Davis    and    Var- 

ney    136  O.G.  2003, 

Seeberger  v.  Russel ,121  O.O.  2328, 

Sendelbach  v.  Gillette ,109  0.0.    276, 

Anderson    v.    TVells 122  O.G.   3016, 

Orcutt    V.     McDonald,     Jr., 

and    McDonald 123  O.G.   1288. 

Seymour  v.   U.   S.   ex  rel., 

Brodie   ,  79  O.G.    509, 

Painter    v.    Hall 83  O.G.   1806, 

Anderson      and      Dyer      v. 

Lowry    89  O.G.   1862, 

Schiipphaus  v.  Stevens...,  95  O.G.  1454, 
U.    S.    ex   rel.,    Nat.   Phono- 

grauh       Co.       v.       Allen, 

Com.   of  Pat 101  O.G.   1134, 

Seymour  v.  Nelson , 

Shaffer  v.  Dolan ,108  0.0.2146, 

Shaffer   v.    Dolan ,100  O.G.  3012, 

Shaffer   v.    Dolan 107  O.G.     539, 

Miles    v.    Todd 112  O.G.   1480, 

Sharer  v.  McHenry ,  98  O.G.    585, 

Sliarer    v.    McHenry 91   O.G.  1034. 

Dashiell   v.   Tasker ,102  O.G.  1552, 

Garrels  et  al.  v.   Freeman,  103  O.G.  1684. 

Quist    V.    Ostrom 106  O.G.  1501. 

French    v.    Halcomb ,  115  O.G.  506, 

Bauer    v.    Crone 118  O.G.  1071. 

Sheldon  A35  0.0.  1585, 

Shellaberger  v.  Schnabel.  .,  79  O.O.    339, 

Bender     v.     Hoffmann....,    85  O.G.   1741, 

Shellaberger  v.  Sommer..,  74  0.0.1897, 

Shaffer   v.    Dolan ,  107  O.G.     540. 

Sherwood  v.  Drewsen ,  1 30  0.0.    657, 

Shuman  v.  Beall  Jr ,123  O.O.  1664, 

Silverman  v.  Hendrickson.,  99  0.0.  1171, 

Silverman  v.   Hendrickson.    99  O.G.      445. 

Patten    v.    Wiesenfeld 99  O.G.   2548. 

Taylor.  Jr 114  O.G.  1265, 

Marconi   v.    Shoemaker. ..,  131  O.G.  1940, 


1906  CD. 
1905  CD.  605, 

1905   CD.   665, 


28  App.D.C.  409 
25  App.D.C.  307 

25   App.D.C.    307 


1 90 1  CD.  419,    18  App.D.C  420 


23  App.D.C.  377 

23  App.D.C.   377 

24  App.D.C  476 

24  App.D.C.   476 
30  App.D.C.      92 


1904  CD.  655, 

1904  CD.   222. 

1905  CD.  603, 

1905  CD.   603. 

1905  CD.  549. 

1906  CD.  558 
1906  CD.  206 
1906  CD.  732 
1906  CD.  732 

1906  CD.   270, 

1907  CD. 

1908  CD. 
1908  CD. 

1908  CD. 

1906  CD.  612, 
1904  CD.  597, 

1906  CD.   667, 

1906  CD.   705,       27  App.D.C.   228 


26  App.D.C. 
28  App.D.C 

27  App.D.C. 

27  App.D.C. 

28  App.D.C. 
31   App.D.C. 

30  App.D.C. 

31  App.D.C. 


399 
18 
567 
567 
405 
293 
203 
577 


31   App.D.C.   590 

26  App.D.C  344 
22  App.D.C  168 

27  App.D.C.    115 


1897  CD.  372,  10  App.D.C.  567 

1898  CD.     91,  App.D.C. 

1899  CD.   230,  App.D.C. 
1901  CD.   365.  17  App.D.C.   548 


1902  CD. 

571. 

19  App.D.C   142 

11  App.D.C    58 

1904  CD. 

592, 

23  App.D.C    79 

1902   CD. 
1904   CD. 
1904   CD. 

344. 
592, 
420, 

23  App.D.C.      79 

23  App.D.C.      79 

App.D.C. 

1905  CD. 

503, 

19  App.D.C  158 

1900. CD. 
1903   CD. 
1903  CD. 
1903   CD. 
1905   CD. 
1905  CD. 

65, 
50, 
56, 

348, 
81, 

378, 

19  App.D.C.   158 
21   App.D.C.      64 
21   App.D.C.   207 
23  App.D.C      69 
26  App.D.C.   307 
26  App.D.C.   352 

1908  CD. 

, 

31  App.D.C  201 

1897  CD 

364, 

10  App.D.C  145 

1898  CD. 

262, 

App.D.C 

1896  CD 

292, 

8  App.D.C      3 

1904   CD. 

592. 

23  App.D.C.      79 

1907  CD 

, 

29  App.D.C  161 

1906  CD 

710, 

27  App.D.C.  324 

1902  CD 

527, 

19  App.D.C  381 

1902   CD. 
1902   CD. 
;905   CD. 
1907  CD. 

123, 

197, 

45, 

19  App.D.C   381 

App.D.C. 
31   App.D.C.   529 

App.D.C. 

42  PATENT  CITATOR  FOR  APPEAL.  CASES 

Slaughter  v.  Halle ,102O.G.    469,  1903  CD.  519,  21  App.D.C.    19 

Barrett  v.   Harter 112  O.G.     731.  1904  CD.  392,       24  App.D.C.  300 

Barrett  v.   Harter ,112  O.G.     732,  1904  CD.  392,       24  App.D.C.   300 

Harter  v.    Barrett 114  O.G.     976,  1905  CD.  578,        24  App.D.C.  300 

French    v.    Halcomb 115  O.G.     508,  1905  CD.     81,       26  App.D.C.  307 

Smelting  Co.  v.  Nathan  Mfg. 

Co ,135  O.G.    664,  1908  CD.        ,   30  App.D.C.  487 

Smith  V.  Anderson ,136  O.G.    850,  1908  CD.        ,  31  App.D.C.  5 18 

Smith  V.  Brooks ,112  O.G.    953,  1904  CD.  672,  24  App.D.C    75 

Smith  V.  Duell,  Com.  of  Pat.  87  O.G.    893,  1899  CD.  313,    14  App.D.C.  181 

Lowry    v.    Duell,    Com.    of 

Pat 88  O.G.     718,  1899  CD.  410,  App.D.C. 

Beswick  v.  Duell,  Com.  of 

Pat 91  O.G.   1437,  1900  CD.   294,        16  App.D.C.   345 

Smith  V.  Foley ,136  O.G.    850,  1908  CD.        ,  31  App.D.C  578 

Snyder    v.    Fisher,    Acting 

Com.  of  Pat ,  78  O.G.    485,  1897  CD.  254,    10  App.D.C.  140 

Sobey  v.  Holsclaw ,126  O.G.  3041,  1906  CD.        ,  28  App.D.C.    65 

Soley  V.  Hebbard ,  70  O.G.    921,  1895  CD.  182,     5  App.D.C.    99 

Clarke      v.      Pettengill      v. 

Crancer    77  O.G.   1271,  1896  CD.  .  App.D.C. 

Somers  &  Co.  v.  Newman, 

Exec.  J.  P.  Horn ,134  O.G.  2031,  1908C.D.        ,   31  App.D.C.  193 

Southall  V.  Seymour,  Com. 

of  Pat ,  79  O.G.  1684,  1897  CD.  480, 

Spalding  (A.  G.)  &  Bros...,  123  O.G.    321,  1906C.D.674,   27App.D.C.314 

Spitteler  &  Krische ,134  O.G.  1301,  1908  CD.        ,   31  App.D.C.  271 

Standard  Underground  Ca- 
ble  Co ,123  O.G.    656,  1906  CD.  687,   27  App.D.C  320 

Planten    v.    Canton    Phar- 
macy   Company 130  O.G.   1484,  1907  CD.  ,  App.D.C. 

Graves   V.   Gunder 136  O.G.     228,  1908  CD.  ,  App.D.C. 

Stapleton  v.  Duell ,  95  O.G.  1049,  17  App.D.C.  575 

Stapleton  v.  Kinney ,  96  O.G.  1432,  1901  CD.  414,    18  App.D.C.  394 

Clement     v.      Richard.s      v. 

Meissner    113  O.G.   1145,  1904   CD.   492,        24  App.D.C.   205 

Turnbull   v.    Curtis ,120  O.G.   2444,  1906  CD.   732,       27  App.D.C.   567 

Starkey   ,104  O.G.  2150,  1903  CD.  607,  21  App.D.C  519 

Starkey    105  O.G.     745,  1903  CD.  251.       21  App.D.C.  519 

Felbel    v.    Aquilar ,121   O.G.   1012,  1906  CD.   113,  App.D.C. 

Felbel    v.    Aquilar 121   O.G.  1013.  1906  CD.   113,  App.D.C. 

Ams     ,  127  O.G.   3646.  1907  CD.  ,        29   App.D.C.      91 

Steinmetz  V.  Thomas ,131  O.G.    362,  1908  CD.        ,  31  App.D.C.  579 

Steinmetz  v.  Thomas 119  O.G.   1260,  1905  CD.   507,       31   App.D.C   574 

Stern  V.  Rosey ,133  O.G.    763,  1908  CD.        ,    17  App.D.C.  562 

Stevens  V.  Seher ,  31  O.G.  1932,  1897  CD.  761,    1 1  App.D.C.  245 

Stevens   v.   Field   v.    Seher,    81   O.G.   1929,  1897  CD.   177,       11   App.D.C.  245 

Fowler    v.    Dod^c 82   O.G.   1689,  1898  CD.      28,        14  App.D.C.   477 

Richardson    v.    Humphrey,    88  O.G.   2241,  1899  CD.    179,  App.D.C. 

Schiipphaus   v.   .Stevens...,    95   O.G.   1453,  1901   CD.   365.        17  App.D.C   548 

Schiipphaus  v.   Stevens...,    95  O.G.   1454,  1901   CD.   365,        17  App.D.C   548 

Hammond    v.    Basch ,115  O.G.      806,  1905  CD.  615,        24  App.D.C.   469 

Parkes    v.    Lewis ,123   O.G.   2314.  1906  CD.   735.        28  App.D.C        1 

Stone  V.  Pupin ,100  O.G.  1 1 13,  1902  CD.  550,    19  App.D.C.  396 

Pupin    V.    Hutin    and    Le- 

Blanc    V.    Stone ,100  O.G.     931,  1902  CD.  269,       19  App.D.C.  396 


PATENT  CITATOR  FOR  APPEAL  CASES 


43 


Swihart  v.  Mauldin ,  99  O.G.  2322, 

Swihart  v.   Maulding 99  O.G.  665, 

Luger    V.    Browning 104  O.G.  1124, 

Seeberger   v.    Dodge 114   O.G.  2383, 

Podlesak   and   Podlesak  v. 

Mclnnerney    120  O.G.  2130, 

Orcutt    V.     McDonald,     Jr., 

and    McDonald 123  O.G.  1288, 

Swinburne ,  99  O.G.  1625, 

Talbot  V.  Monell ,  1 09  O.G.    280, 

Talbot      V.       Monell       and 

Jame-s     109  O.G.     554, 

Talbot  V.  Monell  &  James. .  ,109  O.G.    554, 

Taylor    ,136  O.G.  1767, 

Taylor  &  Taylor  v.  Lowrie,123  O.G.  1991, 
Thibadeau  v.  Dickinson.  .  .,1 17  O.G.  600, 
Thibadeau  v.  Hildreth.  . .  .,1 17  O.G.  601, 
Thibadeau  v.  Hildreth.  ..  .,1 17  O.G.  602, 
Thomson ,120  O.G.  2756, 

Thomson     118  O.G.     266, 

Heroult    127  O.G.   3220, 

Thomson  v.  Weston ,  99  O.G.    864, 

Thomson  v.  Weston 94  O.G.  986, 

Blood    V.    Brown 105  O.G.  498, 

Brooks    V.    Hillard 106  O.G.  1241, 

Quist    V.    Ostrom ,  106  O.G.  1507, 

Thomas    v.    Trissel 107  O.G.  266, 

Matthes    v.    Burt ,  111  O.G.  1365, 

Matthes    v.    Burt 114  O.G.  766, 

Bliss    V.    McElroy 128  O.G.  460, 

Cutler   V.    Hall 135  O.G.  449, 

Howard    v.    Bowes 137  O.G.  735, 

Thurston    ,120  O.G.  1166, 

Tournier    ,  94  O.G.  2166, 

Tournier     90  O.G.   1948, 

Steck    98  O.G.      229, 

Tournier    108  O.G.     798, 

Townsend  v.  Ehret  v.  Young 
V.  Struber ,137  O.G.  1485, 

Drawbaugh     v.     Seymour, 

Com.   of  Pat 77  O.G.     317, 

Townsend  v.  Thullen  and 
Thullen  V.  Young ,137  O.G.  1711, 

Drawbaugh     v.     Seymour, 

Com.   of  Pat 77  O.G.     317, 

Tracy  v.  Leslie ,  87  O.G.    891, 

Ruete  V.  Elwell 87  O.G.   2121, 

Feder    v.    Poyet ,    89  O.G.   1344, 

Rosell    V.    Allen ,    92  O.G.   1038, 

Schiipphaus  v.   Stevens...,    95  O.G.   1454, 

Funk   et   al.    v.    Whitely .  .,  117  O.G.     280, 
Podlesak   and   Podlesak   v. 

Mclnnerney    120  O.G.  2130, 

Traver  v.  Brown ,  86  O.G.  1324, 

Ruete    V.    Elwell 87  O.G.   212], 

Reichenbach    v.    Kelley...,    94   O.G.   1188, 

Tyler   v.    St.    Amand 94  O.G.    1970, 

Latham   v.    Armat ,    95  O.G.     2.34, 

Howard    v.     Hey 95  O.G.   1648, 

Greenwood    v.    Dover ,108  O.G.   2144, 

Paul    V.    Hess H^  O.G.     252, 

Funk   et  al.   v.   Whitely. .,  117  O.G.     280. 


1 902  CD.  540,  1 9  App.D.C  570 

1902  CD.   137,  19  App.D.C.  570 

1904  CD.   593,  21   App.D.C.   201 

1905  CD.   603,  24  App.D.C.   476 


1906  CD.  558. 

26  App.D.C.  399 

1906  CD.   705, 

27  App.D.C.   228 

1902  CD.  537, 

19  App.D.C  565 

1904  CD.  606, 

23  App.D.C  108 

1904  CD.   609, 

23  App.D.C   112 

1904  CD.  609, 

23  App.D.C  112 

1908  CD. 

31  App.D.C.  529 

1906  CD.  722, 

27  App.D.C.  527 

1905  CD.  672, 

25  App.D.C.  316 

1905  CD.  675, 

25  App.D.C.  320 

1905  CD.  677, 

25  App.D.C.  323 

1906  CD.  677, 

1905   CD.   327, 

1907  CD. 

26  App.D.C.  419 

26  App.D.C   419 
5  App.D.C.     90 

1902  CD.  521, 

1901   CD.      24, 

1903  CD.   224, 
1903   CD.   335, 
1903   CD.   348, 

1903  CD.   408, 

1904  CD.   296, 

1905  CD.   574, 

1907  CD. 

1908  CD. 
1908  CD. 

19  App.D.C  373 

19  App.D.C.   373 

22  App.D.C.   216 

23  App.D.C.   526 
23  App.D.C.      69 

23  App.D.C  219 

24  App.D.C.   265 
24  App.D.C   265 
29  App.D.C   120 

App.D.C. 
31  App.D.C.   619 

1906  CD.  539, 

26  App.D.C  315 

1901  CD.  306, 

1900  CD.      37, 

1902  CD.        9, 
1904   CD.      36, 

17  App.D.C.  481 

17  App.D.C.   481 

App.D.C. 
17  App.D.C.   481 

9  App.D.C.  219 

9  App.D.C.   219 

1899  CD.  306, 

1899  CD.   379, 

1899  CD.  219, 

1900  CD.   333, 

1901  CD.   365, 
1905  CD.   670, 

14  App.D.C  126 

15  App.D.C.      21 
App.D.C. 

16  App.D.C.   559 

17  App.D.C.   548 
25  App.D.C.   313 

1906  CD.   558. 

1899  CD.  296, 

1899   CD.   379, 
1901   CD.   282, 
1901   CD.   301, 
1901   CD.   337, 
1901   CD.   375, 
1903  CD.      66, 
1905   CD.   610, 
1905  CD.   670, 

26  App.D.C.  399 

14  App.D.C   34 

15  App.D.C      21 
17  App.D.C   333 
17  App.D.C.   464 

17  App.D.C.   345 

18  App.D.C.   142 

23  App.D.C.   251 

24  App.D.C.   462 

25  App.D.C.  313 

44  PATENT  CITATOR  FOR  APPEAL  CASES 

Tripler  V.  Linde ,102  O.G.  1297,  1903  CD.  526,  21  App.D.C.    32 

Trissel  V.  Thomas ,109  O.G.    809,  1904  CD.  616,  23  App.D.C  219 

Turnball  v.  Curtis ,  1 23  O.G.  23 1 2,  1 906  CD.  732,  27  App.D.C.  567 

Tyler  v.  Kelch ,  98  O.G.  1 282,  1 902  CD.  506,  1 9  App.D.C.  1 80 

Weber    v.     Flather ,  103  O.G.     22G,  1903  CD.     70,  21  App.D.C.   179 

Tyler  V.  St.  Amand ,940.G.1939,  1901C.D.301,  17  App.D.C.  464 

Union  Dist.  Co.  v.  Schnei- 
der  ,129  0.G.  2503,  1907  CD.        ,  29  App.D.C      1 

U.  S.  ex  rel.,  Bernardin  v. 

Duell,  Com.  of  Pat ,86  O.G.     99,  1899  CD.  287,  21  App.D.C.      1 

Shoupe  Co.  V.  Crown  Dist.  .        _  ^ 

Co    97  O.G.   1835.  1901   CD.  208,  App.D.C 

Potter    V.    Cook ,  107  O.G.     836,  1903  CD.  446,  App.D.C. 

U.  S.  ex  rel.,  Bronson  Co.  et 

al.  V.  Duell,  Com.  of  Pat.,  95  O.G.    229,  1901  CD.  330,  17  App.D.C  471 

Steck    98  O.G.     229.  1902  CD.       9.  App.D.C 

U.   S.   ex  rel.,   Na.   Phono- 
graph Co.  V.  Allen,  Com. 

of    Pat ,131  O.G.  1133,  1902  CD.  571,  29  App.D.C.  142 

Kephart     103  O.G.   1914.  1903  CD.   137,  App.D.C. 

U.  S.  ex  rel.,  Newcomb  Mo- 
tor Co.  V.  Moore,  Com.  of 

Pat ,1330.G.  1680,  1908C.D.        ,  30  App.D.C.  464 

U.  S.  ex  rel.,  Newcomb  Mo- 
tor Co.  V.  Allen,  Com.  of 

Pat 130  O.G.     302.  1907  CD.          .  30  App.D.C.  464 

Hawkins     v.     Coleman     v. 

Thullen    133  O.G.   1188,  1908  CD.          .  App.D.C. 

McKeen    v.    Jerdone 134  O.G.   2027,  1908  CD.          .  App.D.C. 

U.  S.  ex  rel.,  Stapleton  v. 

Duell,  Com.  of  Pat ,95O.G.1049,  1901C.D.359,  17  App.D.C.  575 

U.  S.  ex  rel.,  State  of  South 

Carolina      v.      Seymour, 

Com.  of  Pat ,660.G.1167,  1894C.D.174,  2  App.D.C.  240 

U.  S.  ex  rel.,  Steinmetz  v. 

Allen,  Com.  of  Pat ,104  O.G.    853,  1903  CD.  578,  22  App.D.C.    56 

steinmetz  v.  Allen,  Com  of.,„„  ^^       „„^ 

Pat 102  O.G.     231,          1903  CD.  .578,  App.D.C 

Steinmetz  v.  Allen,  Com  of  ,„.    ^^       „  „ 

Pat .                 104  O.G.     852,          1903  CD.   632,  App.D.C 

Ex    parte    Prasch '.'.',^9,^  2-^-   1338,          1904  CD.   105,  20  App.D.C  298 

Ex    parte    Prasch 109  O.G.   13.39,          1904   CD.   106,  20  App.D.C  298 

Ex   parte    Emerson 109  O.G.   1610,          1904  CD.   118,  App.D.C. 

Ex    parte    Pickels 109  O.G.   1888,           1904   CD.   126,  App.D.C 

Ex   parte   Selle HO  O.G.   1728,          1904  CD.  222,  26  App.D.C.   331 

Ex   parte   Schraubstadter.,  HO  O.G.  2016,          1904   CD.  230,  App.D.C. 

Ex   parte   Snyder HO  O.G.   2236,          1904  CD.   243,  App.D.C. 

Ex    parte    Law HI   O.G.   10.39,          1904  CD.  292,  App.D.C. 

Ex  parte  Craemer  et  al..,lll   O.G.   1040,          1904  CD.   296,  App.D.C. 

Ex    parte    Richardsen ,112  O.G.   1752.          1904  CD.  436,  App.D.C 

Ex    parte    Ries 113  O.G.   1147,          1904  CD.   503,  App.D.C 

Ex    parte    Towlev 113  O.G.   1968,          1904  CD.   540,  App.D.C 

Ex  parte  Thompson 113  O.G.   2.50,5,          1904   CD.   567,  App.D.C. 

Ex   parte   Barnes 115  O.G.      248,          1905   CD.      70,  App.D.C 

Ex    parte    Galley 115  O.G.     802,          1905  CD.     96,  App.D.C 

Ex   parte    Steinmetz 117   O.G.     901,          1905   CD.   250,  App.D.C 

Ex   parte    Harris ,117  O.G.     904,          1905  CD.   256,  App.D.C. 

Ex  parte   Frasch 

Ex    parte    Hamilton    et    al,  118  O.G.     270,          1905  CD.   335,  App.D.C. 

Ex    parte    Mygatt 118  O.G.   1685,          1905  CD.  410,  20  App.D.C   366 

In    re    Frasch 122  O.G.   1050,          1905  CD.  649,  27  App.D.C.     25 

In  re  Heroult 127  O.G.  3219,  App.D.C. 


PATENT  CITATOR  FOR  APPEAL  CASES 


45 


U.  S.  ex  rel.,  Wedderburn  v. 

Bliss,  Sec.  Int ,  83  O.G.    296, 

U.  S.  Playing  Card  Co.  v. 

Clark  Publishing  Co..  .  .,132  O.G.    681, 

Varley   ,  99  O.G.  2323, 

Verley    09  O.G.  1621, 

Viele  V.  Cummings ,134  O.G.    777, 

Volkmann  and  Truax ,126  O.G.  2593, 

Wagner   ,105  O.G.  1783, 

Spitteler   and   Krische 131  O.G.   1301. 

Warner  v.  Smith ,  84  O.G.    311, 

Smith    V.    Warner 85  O.G.     151, 

Estey    V.    Newton 86  O.G.     800, 

DeWallace   v.    Scott   et   al.,    88  O.G.   1706, 
Reichenbach    v.    Kelley...,    94  O.G.   1188, 

Tyler   v.    St.    Amand 94  O.G.   1970, 

Howard   v.   Hey 95  O.G.   1648, 

Warner    96  O.G.   1238, 

Adams  v.  Murphy 96  O.G.     846, 

Oliver  v.   Felbel 100  O.G.   2386, 

MacDonald    v.    Edison 105  O.G.     975, 

Winter    v.    Slick    v.    Voll- 

kommer 107  O.G.   1660, 

Greenwood    v.    Dover ,108  O.G.  2144, 

Ocumpaugh  v.  Norton 110  O.G.  1723, 

Ocumpaugh  v.  Norton 110  O.G.   1724, 

Smith    v.    Brooks 112   O.G.      955, 

Matthes    v.    Burt 114  O.G.     766, 

Rolfe   v.    Hoffman 121   O.G.   1351, 

Fordyce    v.    Stoetzel 130  O.G.   2373, 

Warren    J34  O.G.    258, 

Watson  V.  Thomas 108  O.G.  1590, 

Watson  V.   Thomas 106  O.G.   1776, 

O'Connell   v.   Schmidt ,118  O.G.     590, 

O'Connell  v.   Schmidt 122  O.G.   2066. 

Weber  and  Barry,  Jr ,117  O.G.  1494, 

Weeks  v.  Dale , 

Grosselin     97  O.G.   2980, 

Weiss ,103  O.G.  1918, 

Welch    ,125  O.G.  2767, 

Wells  V.  Reynolds ,  69  O.G.    121, 

Estey    v.    Newton 86  O.G.     800, 

Wells,  Jr.  V.  Reynolds.  . .  .,  69  O.G.  1507, 
Westinghouse  Jr.  v.  Duncan,  66  O.G.  1009, 

Boyden    Power    Brake    Co. 

et    al.    V.    Westinghouse 

et  al 83  O.G.   1069, 

McGuire  v.   Hill 84  O.G.     984. 

Newcomb    v.    Lemp 110  O.G.     308, 

Allen,    Com.    of   Pat.,    v.    U. 

S.  ex  rel.,  Geo.  A.  Lowry 

and    Planters    Compress 

Co 116  O.G.   2258, 

Jones    V.    Starr ,  117  O.G.   1496, 

Hanson     105  O.G.   2058, 

Schraubstadter      116  O.G.   1185, 

Weston    ,  94  O.G.  1786, 

Trevette    97  O.G.   1174, 

Creveling    Ill   O.G.   2489, 

Meinhardt     129  O.G.  3503, 


1898  CD.  413,    12App.D.C.485 


1908  CD. 

1902  CD.  543, 

1902   CD.   172, 

1908  CD. 
1906  CD. 

1903  CD.  629, 

1908  CD. 


1898 

1898 
1899 
1899 
1901 
1901 
1901 
1901 
1901 
1902 
1902 


CD. 

CD. 
CD. 
CD. 
CD. 
CD. 
CD. 
CD. 
CD. 
CD. 
CD. 


517, 
213, 
284, 
416, 
282, 
301, 
375, 
97, 
401, 
565, 
242. 


1903  CD.  477, 

1904  CD.  66, 
1904  CD.  207, 
1904   CD.   207, 

1904  CD.   223, 

1905  CD.   574, 

1906  CD.   588, 

1907  CD. 

1908  CD. 

1904  CD.  587, 

1903   CD.    370, 

1905  CD.   342, 

1906  CD.   662, 

1905  CD.  693, 


1901   CD.   248, 

1903  CD.  546, 
1906  CD.  758, 
1894  CD.  510, 

1899  CD.   284. 

1894  CD.  664, 
1894  CD.  170, 


1898  CD.  443, 
1898  CD.  134, 
1904  CD.  146. 


1905  CD.   643, 

1905  CD.   694, 

1903  C.D.    284, 
1905  CD.    214, 

1901  C.D.  290, 

1901  CD.    170, 

1904  C.D.   353, 
1907  CD. 


30  App.D.C  208 
19  App.D.C.597 

19  App.D.C.   597 

30  App.D.C.  455 
28  App.D.C.  441 

22  App.D.C.  267 

31  App.D.C   271 

13 App.D.C  111 

13  App.D.C.   Ill 

14  App.D.C.      50 

15  App.D.C.  157 
17  App.D.C.   333 

17  App.D.C.   464 

18  App.D.C.   142 
App.D.C. 

18  App.D.C.   172 

20  App.D.C.   255 

21  App.D.C.   527 

App.D.C. 

23  App.D.C.   251 

24  App.D.C.   296 

25  App.D.C.  90 
24  App.D.C.  75 
24   App.D.C.   265 

26  App.D.C.   336 
App.D.C. 

30  App.D.C.  308 
23  App. 

23  App. 

27  App. 
27   App. 


26  App 
31  App 

App. 

21  App 
28  App 

4  App 

14   App. 

5  App 
2  App 


.D.C    65 

D.C  65 
D.C.  77 
D.C.      77 

.D.C    29 
.D.C  498 

D.C 

.D.C 
.D.C 
.D.C 

D.C 

.D.C 
.D.C 


214 

362 

43 

50 

20 
131 


App.D.C 
App.D.C. 
App.D.C 


26  App.D.C        8 
26  App.D.C.      64 

App.D.C 
26  App.D.C.   331 

17  App.D.C  431 

App.D.C 

25  App.D.C   530 

App.D.C. 


46  PATENT  CITATOR  FOR  APPEAL  CASES 

White    , 136  O.G.  1771,  1908  CD. 

Whitney  v.  Howard ,104  O.G.  1659,  1903  CD.  597, 

Whitson  V.  Columbia  Phono- 
graph Co ,  98  O.G.    418,  1902C.D.497, 

Wickers  and  Furlong ,  1 29  O.G.  2072,  1 907  CD. 

Wickers  and  Furlong  v,  Al- 
bert     J29  O.G.  1268,  1907  CD. 

Wickers  and  Furlong  v.  Mc- 

Kee    ,129  O.G.    869,  1907  CD. 

Wickers     and     Furlong    v. 

McKee    124  O.G.     908,  1906  CD.  326. 

Wickers    and     Furlong     v. 

Upham     129  O.G.   1612,  1907  CD. 

W^ickers  and  Furlong  v.  Mc- 
Kee     ,129  O.G.  1269,    1907  CD. 

Wickers  and  Furlong  v.  Mc- 
Kee     ,129  O.G.  1270,    1907  CD. 

Wickers  and  Furlong  v.  Up- 
ham     ,129  O.G.  1612,    1907  CD. 

William  Conners  Paint  Mfg. 

Co ,1230.G.    999,    1906C.D.696, 

Williams    ,130  O.G.  1892,    1907  CD. 

Williams  v.  Ogle ,  87  O.G.  1958,    1899  CD.  367, 

Winchester  Repeating  Arms 

Co.    V.    Peters    Cartridge 

Co ,134O.G.2030,    1908C.D. 

Winslow  V.  Austin ,  86  O.G.  2171,    1899  CD.  301, 

Garrels  et  al.   v.   Freeman,  103  O.G.   1684,  1903  CD.     56, 

Kyle    V.    Corner 113  O.G.  2218,  1904  CD.  559, 

French    v.    Halcomb 115  O.G.     508,  1905  CD.     81, 

Podlesak  and   Podlesak  v. 

Mclnnerney    120  O.G.   2129,  1906  CD.  558, 

Kempshall  v.  Royce ,129  O.G.   3164,  1907  CD. 

Woods  V.   Poor 130  O.G.  1313,    1907  CD. 

Woods    V.    Poor 126  O.G.     391,  1907  CD. 

Davis    V.    Horton 136  O.G.   1769,  1908  CD. 

Worster  Brewing  Corpora- 
tion v.  Rueter  &  Co ,133  O.G.  1190,    1908  CD. 

Worcester  Brewing  Cor- 
poration V.  Reuter  & 
Co 133  O.G.   1190,  1908  CD. 

Hansen      v.     Inland      Type 

Foundry    134   O.G.     777,  1908  CD. 

Brawn-Forman    Co.    v. 
Beech    Hill    Distilling 
Co 134   O.G.    1566,  1908  CD. 

Wurts  V.  Harrington , 

Wyman  v.  Donnelly ,104  O.G.    310,    1903  CD.  556, 

Donnelly    v.    Wyman ,  103  O.G.      6.'i7,  1903   CD.      95, 

Brooks    V.    Smith 110  O.G.   2014,  1904  CD.   223, 

Seeberger   v.    Dodge 114  O.G.  2384,  1905  CD.   603, 

Turnbull    v.    Curtis 120  O.G.   2444,  1906  CD.      67, 

Turnbull    v.    Curtis 123  O.G.   2312,  1906  CD.   732, 

Yates  V.  Huson ,  74  O.G.  1732,    1896  CD.  278, 


31  App.D.C607 
21  App.D.C    28 

18App.D.C565 
29  App.D.C    71 

29  App.D.C.  23 

29  App.D.C   4 

29  App.D.C.   4 
29  App.D.C.  30 

29  App.D.C  21 
29  App.D.C  28 

29  App.D.C.  30 

27  App.D.C.  389 

30  App.D.C.  117 
14  App.D.C  145 


30  App.D.C.  505 
14  App.D.C.  137 

21  App.D.C.  207 
24  App.D.C.  291 
26  App.D.C  307 

26  App.D.C.  399 
29  App.D.C.   181 

29  App.D.C  397 

29  App.D.C   397 

31  App.D.C.   601 

30  App.D.C  428 

30  App.D.C.  428 
App.D.C. 

30  App.D.C.  485 

10  App.D.C  149 
21  App.D.C.    81 

21  App.D.C  81 
24  App.D.C.  75 
24  App.D.C.   476 

27  App.D.C.  567 
27  App.D.C.  567 

8  App.D.C    93 


Alphabetical  List  of  Defendants 


Adams,  Glenn  v , 

Adams    Mfg.    Co.,    Andrew 
McLean  Co.  v 

Aglar,  Pickles  v 

Albert,  Wickers  and  Furlong 
V 

Allen,  Rosell  v 

Anderson,  Smith  v 

Antisdel,  Foster  v 

Antisdel,  Lloyd  v 

Appert,  Parker  v 

Armat,  Latham  v 

Ashworth,  Munster  v 

Atterbury,  Croskey  v 

Austin,  Winslow  v 

Automatic  Scale  Co.,  Com 
puting  Scale  Co.  v 

Barnett,  Couch  v 

Barrett,  Harter  v 

Basch,  Hammond  v 

Beall  Jr.,  Shuman  v 

Beech  Hill  Dis.  Co.,  Brown 
Forman  Co.  v 

Bentley,  Burton  v 

Bernard,  Huebel  v 

Bernardin,  Northall  v 

Bigbie  Bros.  &  Co.,  Bluthen 
thai  &  Bickart  v 

Blackman,   Alexander  v..  . 

Blake,  Fenner  v 

Bliss,  Wedderburn  v 

Blood,  Brown  v 

Boch,  Locke  v 

Bollee,  MacMulkin  v..  . . 

Bossart,  Pohl  v 

Bowes,   Howard  v 

Boyce,  Fowler  v 

Bradshaw,  Nielson  v..  .  . 

Breen  &  Kennedy,  Buchan- 
an etc.  Co.  V , 


Brinkman,  Roberts  v 

Brooks,  Hilliard  v 

Brooks,  Smith  v 

Brown,  Prindle  v 

Brown,  Rousseau  v 

Brown,  Traver  v 

Browning,  Luger  v 

Buhoup,  Hien  v 

Burkholder,  Richards  v..  . . 

Burt,  Matthes  v 

Carlton  Co.,  Gaines  &  Co.  v 

Chase,  LaFlare  v 

Cherney,  Clauss  v 

Clauss,  Cherney  v 

Cleal,  McCormick  v 

Clifford  &  Newell,  Rose  v. 
Clark  Publishing  Co.,  U.  8 

Playing  Card  Co.  v 

Columbia   Phonograph   Co. 

Whitson   V 

Cook,  McBerty  v 

Cooke,  Jones  &  Taylor  v.  . . 

Copeland,  Robinson  v 

Cowan,  Feinberg  v 

Cromwell,  Gedge  v 

Crone,  Bauer  v 

Cronemeyer,  Lewis  &  Will 

iams  V 


Cummings,  McKenzie  v..  . . 

Cummings,  Viele  v 

Curtiss,  Turnbull  v 

Dale,  Weeks  v 

Davis  &  Varney,  Mead  v..  . 

Dean,  Furman  v 

Dean,  Hansen  v 

Dean,  Lattig  &  Goodrum  v. 

Decker,  Marvel  v 

DeSchweinitz,  Petrie  v..  . . 
Detroit  Stove  Co.,  American 
Stove  Co.  v , 


48 


PATENT  CITATOR  FOR  APPEAL.  CASES 


Detroit    Stove    Works    and 
Am.  Stove  Co.,   Barstow 

Stove  Co.  V , 

Dickson,  Jenner  v , 

Dickinson,  Thibodeau  v..  . ., 

Doble,  Henry  v , 

Dodge,   Fowler  v , 

Dodge,  Seeberger  v , 

Dolan,   Shaifer  v , 

Donnelly,  Wyman  v , 

Dover,  Greenwood  v , 

Drewsen,  Sherwood  v , 

Duncan,  Westinghouse  Jr.  v. 

Dyson,  Fowler  v , 

Edison,  Macdonald  v , 

Ellis,  Christensen  v , 

Elwell,  Ruete  v , 

Farrow,  Elipse  Bicycle  Co. 

V , 

Felbel,  Oliver  v , 

Fetzer,  McKillop  v , 

Finkenbeiner,  Beals  v , 

Fisher,  Acting  Com.  of  Pat., 

Snyder  v , 

Fleming,  Dickey  v , 

Flora,  Ball  v , 

Foley,  Smith  v , 

Ford,  Burr  v , 

Fowler,  Dodge  v , 

Freeman,  Carrels  v , 

Fuller,  Battle  Creek  etc.  v. 

Fullman,  Herman  v , 

Fynn,  Kelley  v , 

Garrett,   Davis  v , 

Geen,  Kreag  v , 

Getz,  Jackson  v , 

Giles,  Giles  Remedy  Co.  v. 

Gillette,  Sendelbach  v , 

Goebel,  Cobb  v , 

Grant,  Darnell  v , 

Guerrant,  Coffee  v , 

Haines,  Funk  v.  Matteson  v. 

Haines,  Funk  v , 

Hallwood,  Carroll  v , 

Halcomb,  French  v , 

Halle,  Slaughter  v , 

Hallwood,  McCormick  v..  ., 
Hanson,  Roe  v , 


Hanson,  Lotterhand  v , 

Hastings,  Gallagher  v , 

Harrington,  Wurts  v , 

Hauser,  Loomis  v , 

Hebbard,  Soley  v , 

Hendrickson,  Silverman  v., 

Hepburn,  Mason  v , 

Herring  -  Hall  -  Marvin  Co., 

Hall's  Safe  Co.  v , 

Hess,  Paul  v , 

Hess,  Howell  Jr.  v , 

Hewitt,  Moore  v , 

Hey,  Howard  v , 

Hien,  Gallagher  v , 

Hildreth,  Thibodeau  v , 

Hinson,  Gilman  &  Brown  v. 

Hirner,  Kilbourn  v , 

Hobart,  Goolman  v , 

Hodge,  Hill  v , 

Hodgkinson,  Lindmark  v..  ., 

Hodgson,  Colhoun  v , 

Hoffman,  Rolfe  v , 

Hoffman,  Lindemeyer  v..  . . , 

Holsclaw,  Sobey  v , 

Holt,  Ingersoll  v , 

Holmes,  Braunstein  v , 

Horton,  Davis  v , 

Houston,  Eastman  v , 

Howard,  Whitney  v , 

Hundhausen,  Sachs  v , 

Huson,  Yates  v , 

Ingram,  Hall  &  Ruckel  v..  ., 
International     Silver     Co., 

Rogers  Ltd.  v , 

Johnson,  Austin  v , 

Johnson,  Paul  v , 

Jones,  Busch  v , 

Kelley,  Miller  v , 

Kellogg,  Carty  v , 

Kellinger,  Guilbert  v , 

Kelley,   Reichenbach  v...., 

Kelch,  Tyler  v , 

Kenney,  Lotz  v , 

Kenneweg  Co.,  Mich.  Con- 
densed Milk  Co.  V , 

Leslie,  Tracy  v , 

Kintner,  Kinsman  v , 

Kingsley,  Milton  v , 


ALPHABETICAL  LIST   OF   DEFENDANTS 


t6 


Kinney,  Stapleton  v , 

Kirkegaard  &  Jebsen,  Ries 

V , 

Knapp,  Jackson  v , 

Knecht  &  Son,  Gaines  &  Co. 

V , 

Kyle,  Corner  v , 

Lalor,  Hallwood  v , 

Larsson,  Jansson  v , 

LaTosca  Social  Club,  Orig- 
inal LaTosca  Club  v , 

Latshaw,   Duff  v , 

Leonard,  Cutler  v , 

Levi,   Lane   v , 

Lewis  Parkes  v , 

Linde,  Tripler  v , 

Lines,  Cushman  v , 

Loewer,  Roos  v , 

Long,  Hulett  v , 

Louden,  Porter  v 

Lowrie,  Taylor  &  Taylor  v. 
Lyndmark,  DeFerranti  v..  ., 

McBerty,  Fowler  v , 

McCaslin,  Hunt  v , 

McCormick,  Robinson  v..  . ., 

McDermott,  Corry  v , 

McDonald  Jr.  &  McDonald, 

Orcutt   V , 

McElroy,  Bliss  v , 

McHenry,  Sharer  v , 

Mcintosh,  Potter  v , 

Mclnnerney,     Podlesak     & 

Podlesak  v , 

McRoberts,  Doyle  v , 

McKee,  Wickers  and  Fur- 
long  V , 

Maltine  Co.,  Peter  Schoen- 

hofen  Brewing  Co.  v..., 

Matteson  v.  Haines,  Funk  v. 

Martin     and     Bowne     Co., 

Martin  v , 

Mauldin,  Swihart  v , 

Meissner,  Murphy  v , 

Meissner,  Richard  v , 

Midgeley,  Mell  v , 

Moore,  Com.  of  Pat.,  U.  S. 
of  A.  ex  rel..  The  New- 
comb  Motor  Co.  V , 


Monell,  Talbot  v , 

Monell  &  James,  Talbot  v     , 

Mudge,  Lempt  v , 

Muesser,  Johnson  v , 

Muller,  Schuster  Co.  v , 

Murphy,  Adams  v , 

Murphy  &  Co.,  Case  Bros.  v. 

Mygatt,   McArthur  v , 

Nathan     Mfg.     Co.,     Edna 

Smelting  Co.  v , 

Nelson,  Seymour  v , 

Newell,  Clifford  v 

Newton,  Estey  v , 

Newman,  Hopkins  v , 

New  Iberia  Extract  of  To- 
basco   Pepper    Co.,    Mc- 

Ilhenny's  Son  v , 

Newman,  Exec.  J.  P.  Horn, 

Somers  &  Co.  v , 

Nilson,  Andrews  v ', 

Noble,  Glidden  v , 

Norton,  Ocumpaugh  v , 

Noyes,  Christensen  v , 

Ogle,  Williams  v , 

Ohmer,  Neth  &  Tamphn  v. 
Old    Lexington    Co.,    Ken- 
tucky Dist.  Co.  V , 

Ostrom,  Quist  v , 

Park,  Cain  v , 

Parkes,  Onderdonk  v , 

Parmelee,  Hill  v , 

Peller,  Gibbons  v , 

Peters  Cartridge  Co.,  Win- 
chester   Repeating    Arms 

Co.   V , 

Peters,  Hisey  v , 

Phillips,  Cross  v , 

Pohle,  McKnight  v , 

Pohle    &    Croasdale,    Mc- 
Knight  V , 

Pohl,  Bossart  v , 

Poor,  Woods  V , 

Powrie,  Flora  v , 

Pungs,  Hien  v , 

Pupin,  Stone  v , 

Read,  Miehle  v , 

Reynolds,  Wells  v , 

Reynolds,  Wells  Jr.  v , 


50 


PATENT  CITATOR  FOR  APPEAL  CASES 


Rice  Jr.,  Duryea  &  White  v 

Richardson,  Larkin  v 

Rose,  Clifford  v 

Rosenbush     &     Co.,     Rose 

Shoe  Mfg.  Co.  V 

Rosey,  Stern  v 

Rothe,  Meyer  v 

Royce,  Kempshall  v 

Russell,  Ascencio  v 

Russell,  Seeberger  v 

Rueter     &     Co.     Worster 

Brewing  Corporation  v.  . 

Sarfert,  Meyer  v 

Sawmill,  Einstein  v 

Schneider,  Union  Dist.  Co 


Schnabel,  Shellaberger  v..  . 

Schmidt,  O'Connell  v 

Schellenger,  Dunbar  v 

Schmertz,  Appert  v 

Scott,  Laas  &  Sponenburg  v 

Scott,  DeWallace  v 

Scudder,  Mergenthaler  v..  . 

Seelinger,  Robinson  v 

Stevens,  Schiipphaus  v..  . . 

Seher,  Stevens  v 

Sensenich,  Phillips  v 

Shipley,  Piatt  v 

Smith,  Warner  v 

Simonds,  Backus  etc.  Co.  v 
South  Carolina,  Seymour  v. 

Southgate,  Bechman  v 

Star  Brewery  Co.,  Ehret  v. 

Starr,  Jones  v 

St.  Amand,  Tyler  v 

Stern  &  Lotz,  Harris  v 

Stikeman,  Hunter  v 

Stocker,  Felfel  v 

Strohm,  Kinsman  v 

Sturtevant,  McNeil  v 

Smith,  Bruel  v 

Sommer,  Shellaberger  v.. . 


Spaulding,  Nordon  v 

Swenson,  Griffin  v 

Tasker,  Dashiell  v 

Taylor  &  Taylor,  Lowrie  v. 

Thomas,  Steinmetz  v 

Thomas,  Trissell  v 

Thomas,  Watson  v 

Tripler,  Ostergen  v 

Thresher,  Robinson  v 

Tyler,  Arnold  v 

Upham,  Wickers  and  Fur- 
long  v 

U.  S.   ex  rel  Brodie,  Sey 

mour  v 

U.   S.    ex   rel.,   Lowry   and 

Planters    Compress    Co. 

Allen,  Com  of  Pat.  v..  . 
Uri  (N.  M.  Uri  &  Co.  sub 

stituted),  Levy  &  Co.  v. 

Vajen,  Bader  v 

Vogel,  Burson  v 

Voight,  Hope  Jr.  v 

Washington    R.    &    E.    Co. 

Brill   V 

Weber,  Flather  v 

Wells,  Anderson  v 

Wentworth,  Gordon  v 

Wende,  Horine  v 

Weston,  Thomson  v 

Wictorsohn,  Gueniffit,  Ben- 

oit  &  Nicault  v 

Wilder,  Blackford  v 

Wilkin,  Cleveland  v 

Williams,  Liberman  v 

Williams,  Natural  Food  Co 

V 

Winquist  et  al,  Durkee  Jr 

V 

Whiteley,  Funk  v 

Wood,  Bechman  v 

Woodward,  Newton  v 

Young,  Miel  v 


MR.  STODDARD'S 
PATENT  PUBLICATIONS 


PRACTICE 

IN  THE 

UNITED  STATES  PATENT  OFFICE 

A  table  of  cases  construing  and  defining  the  several 
rules  of  practice  and  of  cases  subsequently  cited.  Pub- 
lished in  Febuary,  1907. 

1  Volume,  bound  in  paper  -  $1.50 

1      "  "      ♦*  buckram  -  2.00 

1      "  "      "     "    with  patent  rules  2.50 


INTERLOCUTORY  MOTIONS 

IN  THE 

UNITED  STATES  PATENT  OFFICE 

NOTES  TO 

RULES  96=97,  109,  122,  123,  130  and  153 

Published  in  1908.     1  volume,  buckram  $1.10 
Shipped  prepaid  on  receipt  of  price. 


FOR  SALE  BY 


DRAKE  LAW  BOOK  COMPANY 
DETROIT 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIOMAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  838  135    2 


11,, 

■''''^illililHlilll'Ulliii. 


(HiSIiiifSliliiKiiii.t-HniiSilJ! 


m 


